So...BHO campaigned and got elected partially due to his stance on Afghanistan (get out of Iraq within X months and escalate the war in Afghanistan). Can we agree on that? Note I wrote "partially"....

Now...we've lost 58 soldiers so far in October...8 in two separate attacks on Strykers today (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html) ....so are we all in as he said we would be during the campaign (and his commanders in the field have requested), or all we all out since our leader won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Vacillation will only lead to more senseless deaths...either make the commitment you PROMISED you'd make, or GET OUT NOW. Period.

Or is it the multitasking that he can't handle?

kg

YardleyLabs

10-27-2009, 08:49 PM

The increase in the death toll in Afghanistan is a direct result of the massive expansion in force levels since the inauguration, moving from 20,000+ troops in January to 65,000+ now.

The proposals now on the table would increase troop levels further by 20-80000 depending on what approach is followed. While McChrystal has submitted his recommendations, the Pentagon has not formulated a recommendation yet and has been running military exercises attempting to provide better insight into possible outcomes at different troop levels under the direction of Admiral Mullen.

Reportedly this process is complete or almost complete with recommendations due for submission to the President in the next two weeks. If a decision is made to add 40,000 new troops, we would still face a major problem in delivering those troops on a timely basis without involuntarily extending tours of duty again, breaking another commitment made. All this must be done in an environment where we cannot, in my opinion, allow ourselves to adopt an attitude of supporting the Karzai government regardless of it level of corruption.

I am glad that a lot of attention is being given to the importance of the decision. I do not believe that there is any lack of a sense of urgency. With a little more thought eight years ago I do not believe we would now be in the mess. But then we had some decision makers who began with their "gut" feelings and then did all they could to bend facts and opinions to fit.

K G

10-27-2009, 09:07 PM

Interesting. Most folks who take exception to the military initiatives begun 8 years ago supported an Afghanistan-only focus at the time.

That view was "de rigeur" during the BHO campaign...I guess this is just more proof that what you say to get elected is wholly different from what you do after you're in charge....we'll just add that to the list....;-)

Hillary wants to assure P'stan that we are willing to commit to a long-term relationship:

“It is unfortunate that there are those who question our motives, who perhaps are skeptical that we are going to commit to a long-term relationship,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters traveling with her to Pakistan. “I want to try to clear the air on that while I’m in the country.”

Is it possible to commit to a long-term relationship with P'stan without committing to A'stan?

Gerry Clinchy

10-28-2009, 10:52 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?th&emc=th

If Joe Biden's input is to be respected, perhaps he ought to spend a couple of months with Gen. McChrystal in A'stan to get an "on-the-ground" perspective?

Hew

10-28-2009, 05:03 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?th&emc=th

If Joe Biden's input is to be respected, perhaps he ought to spend a couple of months with Gen. McChrystal in A'stan to get an "on-the-ground" perspective?
That's an informative and interesting article (from the NYT no less). Here's what it says re: the braniac Biden:

"General McChrystal has sought at least 40,000 more troops (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/world/asia/21afghan.html) for a counterinsurgency strategy to protect Afghan civilians so they will support the central government. Mr. Biden has opposed a buildup, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/14biden.html) contending that a bigger military footprint could be counterproductive and that fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan should be the top priority."

That's brilliant, Joe. And just how do we do that? March right on into Pakistan and commence to killing al Qaeda? Cross our fingers and ask the Paksitan govt. real nicely to go kill al Qaeda? Biden is such a freakin' mental lightweight, and such a consummate spouter of politician double-speak. It's scary that that dunce is one heartbeat away...

blind ambition

10-28-2009, 05:31 PM

bigger military footprint could be counterproductive and that fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan should be the top priority."

That's brilliant, Joe. And just how do we do that? March right on into Pakistan and commence to killing al Qaeda? Cross our fingers and ask the Paksitan govt. real nicely to go kill al Qaeda? Biden is such a freakin' mental lightweight, and such a consummate spouter of politician double-speak. It's scary that that dunce is one heartbeat away...

Quote:
“It is unfortunate that there are those who question our motives, who perhaps are skeptical that we are going to commit to a long-term relationship,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters traveling with her to Pakistan. “I want to try to clear the air on that while I’m in the country.”

Diplomacy and statecraft aren't always a case of crossing fingers and hoping, sometimes there is real work involved. I know this may seem a difficult notion to accept but in that theatre of operations Al Qaeda is hiding among 32,000,000 Pashtuns who are sympathetic to their cause, you might not have enough troops to handle the situation without the aid of the Pakistan Armed Forces.

Hew

10-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:
“It is unfortunate that there are those who question our motives, who perhaps are skeptical that we are going to commit to a long-term relationship,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters traveling with her to Pakistan. “I want to try to clear the air on that while I’m in the country.”

Diplomacy and statecraft aren't always a case of crossing fingers and hoping, sometimes there is real work involved. I know this may seem a difficult notion to accept but in that theatre of operations Al Qaeda is hiding among 32,000,000 Pashtuns who are sympathetic to their cause, you might not have enough troops to handle the situation without the aid of the Pakistan Armed Forces.
Now that's funny. At the same time Hillary is trying to convince the Pakis that we're in it for the long haul, Obama is dithering over whether we should abandon Afghanistan or not. I hope Hillary brought along Zig Ziglar, Tom Peters and Tony Roberts, because she's gonna need some great sellers (and straight faces) to pimp the notion that the same folks who were willing and ready to throw Iraq to the wolves (Obama, Clinton, Biden and Kerry) when the going got tough now have the steely resolve to cover Pakistan's back. "Long-term committment" to those folks really means, "until the next Gallup poll comes out."

Roger Perry

10-28-2009, 06:08 PM

With a little more thought eight years ago I do not believe we would now be in the mess. But then we had some decision makers who began with their "gut" feelings and then did all they could to bend facts and opinions to fit.

The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.
Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf) (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States."
And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.
http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/

YardleyLabs

10-28-2009, 09:57 PM

Whether the story is Pearl Harbor or September 11, the points at which an attack could have been prevented are always clearer and more compelling in retrospect than in advance. If Clinton had fought harder for the resources to go after al Quaeda in the last year of his Presidency, Congress would have accused him of political grandstanding in an effort to affect the election, much as they had attacked him for the war in Kosuvo. Had Bush tried to take the types of actions that would have been required to protect our airways in the months following his inauguration, I suspect that liberals would have accused him of trying to implement a police state. Richard Clark was very critical of the lack of focus in the new administration on terrorists and their obsession with Iraq. However, his criticisms were directed more toward the fact that the country as a whole was not ready to give efforts to prevent attacks the priority they needed to be effective. The fact that there was a lapse in attention during the change of administrations is, to some extent, an intrinsic characteristic of our form of government. I think a better job was done in the transition from Bush to Obama, with everyone recognizing the importance of continuity.

Gerry Clinchy

10-28-2009, 10:49 PM

Yes, I think it's going to be hard for Hillary to convince P'stan of a long-term commitment if we don't find a way to solve the A'stan problem which serves as the bas for the AQ, with Taliban support. I'm sure AQ would love to get it's hands on P'stans nuclear capability. Even O seemed to acknowledge that fact when he has called A'stan a "war of necessity." Maybe Hillary and Joe ought to put their heads together on this, since P'stan and A'stan are inextricably connected in finding an overall solution.

Jeff, I, too, recall that the media mentioned, at the time, that the access the Bush administration gave O between Nov. and Jan. was more than any other Pres-elect had ever been given. It has been said in this forum that the Rs keep whining over the loss of the election. To his credit, Bush did not whine, he gave O all the assist he could in making for the smoothest possible transition. While O has been in office 9 mos, he also had a good headstart of two months to get his ducks in a row.

Roger, as I recall, the media gave quite a lot of coverage to the lack of coordination of information that contributed to 9/11 occurring without previous detection and prevention. That's really pretty old stuff, not new revelations.

blind ambition

10-28-2009, 11:01 PM

she's gonna need some great sellers (and straight faces) to pimp the notion that the same folks who were willing and ready to throw Iraq to the wolves (Obama, Clinton, Biden and Kerry) when the going got tough now have the steely resolve to cover Pakistan's back. "Long-term committment" to those folks really means, "until the next Gallup poll comes out."

I think the Pakistanis will be delighted to know that it isn't the same folks who appeared to be declaring war on all Muslims by needlessly invading Iraq.

Pete

10-28-2009, 11:49 PM

That view was "de rigeur" during the BHO campaign...I guess this is just more proof that what you say to get elected is wholly different from what you do after you're in charge....we'll just add that to the list....:wink:

I followed the campaine pretty much and I never heard him talk about trying to break the fund raising record,,or scheduled appearances on popular talk shows,, flying around the world trying to set up sports events in his home town or a ridged speach appearance schedule. I thought the campaining would be over after the elections also.
I dont remember anything about the formation of a shadow government either.
Give the guy a break ,,he has been really busy.

Pete

Hew

10-29-2009, 12:57 AM

I think the Pakistanis will be delighted to know that it isn't the same folks who appeared to be declaring war on all Muslims by needlessly invading Iraq.
Right. I'm sure they were tickeled pink at Obama's diplomatic statecraft when he threatened to unilaterally bomb/invade Pakistan during the last campaign:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama) said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. Tsk, tsk...goaded into cowboy diplomacy I suppose.
........

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
........

Obama said he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan making substantial progress in closing down training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/afghanistanpakistan) from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks on Afghanistan. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Speaking of Obama making US aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan's progress in combating al Qaeda...earlier this very month here's the Pakistan military telling Obama to take his conditions and shove them up his arse:

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's powerful military rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9B6KIV80

At this rate, if Obama unleashes any more art of statecraft on Pakistan they'll soon be lobbing their nukes at us.

That's partly facetious, because although Obama's foreign policy is to this point as limp-wristed and ineffective as Richard Simmons trying to hold 40lb dumb-bells, he's not responsible for Pakistan's screwed up nature. That place is an unsolvable enigma. Obama is responsible, however, for letting Biden out of his cage and allowing him to jabber on pretending that relying on Pakistan is a viable option.

blind ambition

10-29-2009, 04:55 PM

Speaking of Obama making US aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan's progress in combating al Qaeda...earlier this very month here's the Pakistan military telling Obama to take his conditions and shove them up his arse (my, my such hyperbolic misconstruction. Remind me not to say "no thank you" to you for the offer of one of your fine sandwhiches, lest I end up eating it from the wrong end):

Quote:
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's powerful military rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...wVTmAD9B6KIV80 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9B6KIV80)
At this rate, if Obama unleashes any more art of statecraft on Pakistan they'll soon be lobbing their nukes at us.

Hey not so fast there cowboy, even if you must site an old, stale, pre Swat Valley invasion article, you should at least have read all the way down to the bottom where it clearly states the reasons for the comment are due more to internal Pakistani politics than failure of US statecraft.

To quote your reference:
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.
"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."

K G

10-29-2009, 06:41 PM

Hey not so fast there cowboy, even if you must site an old, stale, pre Swat Valley invasion article, you should at least have read all the way down to the bottom where it clearly states the reasons for the comment are due more to internal Pakistani politics than failure of US statecraft.

Somebody's gotta keep up with Roger posting HIS older-than-dirt stuff....

5 months beats 5 years regards,

kg

Hew

10-30-2009, 01:33 AM

Hey not so fast there cowboy, even if you must site an old, stale, pre Swat Valley invasion article, you should at least have read all the way down to the bottom where it clearly states the reasons for the comment are due more to internal Pakistani politics than failure of US statecraft. Me-ooooooow. Kitty's got her back up. The article is dated Oct. 7, 2009. Pakistan "invaded" (as you say) Swat early in the summer. You see, in America we would call that a post-Swat article. And in the rest of the world we would shrug our shoulders with a collective "so what" that Pakistan has made a token effort to establish some measure of control over part of its own country; not look at it as some sort of watershed moment that Pakistan has decided to rid itself of dangerous Islamic fundamentalists.

To quote your reference:
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.
"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest." Well, I guess that's two votes for, "America needs to haul arse and let Pakistan protect American interests in the region because they've got such a good track record." Unfortunately one of the votes is from a space alien (Joe Biden) and the other is from a Canadian who resents any American projection of foreign power or protection of self-interests. Thankfully, even Obama is not likely naive enough to give either of you serious thought.

--------------------

K G

10-30-2009, 12:52 PM

Here we go...I love the title of the article...:)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510812

Nut-cuttin' time regards,

kg

Gerry Clinchy

10-30-2009, 01:03 PM

Meanwhile we are making progress with Iran by leaps and bounds
NY times today
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/world/middleeast/30nuke.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

K G

10-30-2009, 01:15 PM

Wonder how long it will be before Israel says it's "go" time?

Tick tock regards,

kg

Steve Amrein

10-30-2009, 01:56 PM

Wonder how long it will be before Israel says it's "go" time?

Tick tock regards,

kg

Israel knows how to still fight a war.

dback

10-30-2009, 02:13 PM

Here we go...I love the title of the article...:)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510812

Nut-cuttin' time regards,

kg

Quite to the contrary of Yardley's statement....I firmly believe there is a serious "lack of a sense of urgency". The other option is of course that leadership qualities fall below those of even J Carter. It is easy to set behind your keyboard and proclaim the studious leadership being shown when you have no 'Irons in the Fire'. If however, your family has served 13 tours in the Middle East with a newly commissioned Marine Lt surely to serve number 14.....pushing a year to develop a strategy reeks of indecision.

The BHO administration has made one significant leadership decision...under the new 'Rules of Engagement', my son may not return fire even when being fired upon if he has a path of escape or if there is any chance of the presence of civilians. :rolleyes:

Pals

10-30-2009, 02:47 PM

[/QUOTE]The BHO administration has made one significant leadership decision...under the new 'Rules of Engagement', my son may not return fire even when being fired upon if he has a path of escape or if there is any chance of the presence of civilians. :rolleyes:[/quote]

PLEASE tell me that is not true?????!!!!!

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 02:54 PM

The BHO administration has made one significant leadership decision...under the new 'Rules of Engagement', my son may not return fire even when being fired upon if he has a path of escape or if there is any chance of the presence of civilians. :rolleyes:[/quote]

PLEASE tell me that is not true?????!!!!!
[/quote]
Actually, this would follow directly from McChrystal's recommendations on strategy which place first priority on avoidance of civilian casualties even when that means not returning enemy fire.

Gerry Clinchy

10-30-2009, 03:25 PM

Here we go...I love the title of the article...:)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510812

A very good point about "personal security". Ideology becomes insignificant when faced with the threat of death. This was also how the Viet Cong kept control

If protecting personal security requires more troops, it could also mean that our troops are also safer than they would be in fewer numbers.

Not often mentioned anymore is that McC's troop numbers put the 40,000 as the "least" ... his request was actually much higher, but the 40,000 became the # that he hoped he could get.

WaterDogRem

10-30-2009, 03:26 PM

Actually, this would follow directly from McChrystal's recommendations on strategy which place first priority on avoidance of civilian casualties even when that means not returning enemy fire.

So, BHO is willing and already accepted McChrystal's recommendation on that concern (rules of engagement) but cannot make up his mind about the rest of the recommendations yet?

dbulle6

10-30-2009, 03:53 PM

I am currently located in Iraq, Baghdad, this is my second tour here, I served also in 2003-2004 while GWB was in office. Say what you want about GWB, my hands were never tied like they are now when he was in charge. Seems I left this place the first time seeing some improvements, and seeing things head toward a positive direction, well just in the last 5 months they have headed the opposite way, jusrt as they have in Afghanistan. While we still fight and ask for more support we cant get no answers, maybe the Generals here on the ground should ask Oprah or some of the other talk shows BHO is still campaigning on, someone back home please tell him he won, now it is time to make some decisions. I know the Service Members would greatly appreciate it.

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 04:00 PM

So, BHO is willing and already accepted McChrystal's recommendation on that concern (rules of engagement) but cannot make up his mind about the rest of the recommendations yet?
It seems to me that a CIC that does not support field commanders' recommendations concerning rules of engagement should be firing his field commanders. A CIC who fails to question field commanders on their recommendations for fundamental strategy and major resource commitments should fire himself. The two are not the same.

Pals

10-30-2009, 04:25 PM

I am currently located in Iraq, Baghdad, this is my second tour here, I served also in 2003-2004 while GWB was in office. Say what you want about GWB, my hands were never tied like they are now when he was in charge. Seems I left this place the first time seeing some improvements, and seeing things head toward a positive direction, well just in the last 5 months they have headed the opposite way, jusrt as they have in Afghanistan. While we still fight and ask for more support we cant get no answers, maybe the Generals here on the ground should ask Oprah or some of the other talk shows BHO is still campaigning on, someone back home please tell him he won, now it is time to make some decisions. I know the Service Members would greatly appreciate it.

Dulle6--

Thank you for your service. And thank you very much for your post on this thread. It's so easy for people sitting in offices or comfortable in their homes to argue the 'fundamentals' of the finer points of leadership. Bottom line is that our troops need help, the commanders asked for it and the ONE person who makes the final decision is sitting on his hands. I'm so very sorry and I'm ashamed of our leaders. I'm appalled that they would leave you guys with orders to not fire back when being fired upon, cilvilian present or not. Please take care over there and know that many, many Americans pray daily for you and all our service men and women.

road kill

10-30-2009, 04:45 PM

I am currently located in Iraq, Baghdad, this is my second tour here, I served also in 2003-2004 while GWB was in office. Say what you want about GWB, my hands were never tied like they are now when he was in charge. Seems I left this place the first time seeing some improvements, and seeing things head toward a positive direction, well just in the last 5 months they have headed the opposite way, jusrt as they have in Afghanistan. While we still fight and ask for more support we cant get no answers, maybe the Generals here on the ground should ask Oprah or some of the other talk shows BHO is still campaigning on, someone back home please tell him he won, now it is time to make some decisions. I know the Service Members would greatly appreciate it.

dbulle6, thanks for covering my back!!

Men & women like you make me proud to be an American.
I talked to a couple of "former Marines" today, they all talk to the "young Marines" to support them.
The word is that they cannot RETURN fire with out permission from personel not in the field.

Yardley, could you explain to us what they really mean here??:rolleyes:

For any of you that have ever been under fire from hostiles, you know this is not good.

Target practice for the bad guys.

BTW--You think they respect America more for this??

I know I DON"T!!:shock:

dback

10-30-2009, 05:54 PM

It seems to me that a CIC that does not support field commanders' recommendations concerning rules of engagement should be firing his field commanders. A CIC who fails to question field commanders on their recommendations for fundamental strategy and major resource commitments should fire himself. The two are not the same.

When the closest thing to 'hostilities' someone or anyone in someone's family has come to is playing 'internet commando', there is no possibility with my limited vocabulary to describe my complete and utter disdain of their tunnel vision or lack of appreciation for those serving this nation. Two weeks ago, my son-in-law, Scott, served as personal guard to the residence of Mrs Thomas D Rabjohn. Scott spent two days keeping 'War Protesters' with their 'Thank God for IED' signs off her lawn. Sergeant Rabjohn, who served in the same unit as Scott, was a former Marine, Phoenix Police Officer and National Guardsman killed in Afghanistan. Thankfully the outpouring and support by the community dwarfed the POS protesters. Three years ago my son was deployed 4 days before Christmas, 3 days after the birth of his son to no fanfare what so ever, rather, knowing full well that the 'Cindy' crowd might well soon 'have his back'.

For these two, for dbulle6, for Tex and hundreds of thousands more that serve. It is the least that I can do to find and promote true leadership, be it Democrat, Republican or Independent and to expose and remove the cancer of partisian politics from this society and government. I can not adequately describe the depths of my contempt for those who chose to debate for the sake of winning a debate while the lives of our young people hang in the balance. To put it as bluntly as possible in the words of our own ILDO...."I hope there's a special place in hell"

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 06:09 PM

I will admit that beyond your obvious emotion, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that McChrystal, who is the source of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, has no combat experience? Are you suggesting that I, as a civilian, have no right to an opinion about a war that I am helping to pay for? Are you making assumptions (however erroneous) about the military records of my family? Are you suggesting that the President should overrule his commander on the ground with respect to rules of engagement, but accept his recommendations with reagrd to fundamental strategy without question? After reading your post repeatedly, I have no idea what you intended to say.

road kill

10-30-2009, 06:21 PM

I will admit that beyond your obvious emotion, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that McChrystal, who is the source of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, has no combat experience? Are you suggesting that I, as a civilian, have no right to an opinion about a war that I am helping to pay for? Are you making assumptions (however erroneous) about the military records of my family? Are you suggesting that the President should overrule his commander on the ground with respect to rules of engagement, but accept his recommendations with reagrd to fundamental strategy without question? After reading your post repeatedly, I have no idea what you intended to say.

Let me help.

I beleive he is questioning Obama's ability to be Commander and Chief.

And rightfully so.
He is playing politics with peoples lives.
It's time to eliminate or get off the pot!!

When people have family in harms way and politics are being played with their family members lives, they get emotional.....and rightfully so.

I stated some time ago that Afgahnistan will be the Emporers demise.

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 06:30 PM

Let me help.

I beleive he is questioning Obama's ability to be Commander and Chief.

And rightfully so.
He is playing politics with peoples lives.
It's time to eliminate or get off the pot!!

When people have family in harms way and politics are being played with their family members lives, they get emotional.....and rightfully so.

I stated some time ago that Afgahnistan will be the Emporers demise.
I guess I would respond that our forefathers were pretty clear that civilians would control the military -- more specifically the elected President. Obama is qualified to be Commander in Chief based on the simple fact that we, the people, elected him, whether you voted for him or not. Bush was qualified on the same basis despite the obvious shortcomings in his own military career. At least Obama brought in a veteran with sons in the military as his Vice President as opposed to Cheney who went no closer to the military than I did at a similar point in time.

road kill

10-30-2009, 06:40 PM

I guess I would respond that our forefathers were pretty clear that civilians would control the military -- more specifically the elected President. Obama is qualified to be Commander in Chief based on the simple fact that we, the people, elected him, whether you voted for him or not. Bush was qualified on the same basis despite the obvious shortcomings in his own military career. At least Obama brought in a veteran with sons in the military as his Vice President as opposed to Cheney who went no closer to the military than I did at a similar point in time.

Rationalization....the second strongest human drive!!
:D

You guys questioned Bush's ability to lead for 8 years.

We are now questioning Obama's inability to lead.

And I think you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Because it's all about politics with this bunch.

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 06:59 PM

Rationalization....the second strongest human drive!!
:D
Where's the rationalization? Your comment makes no sense. Is it the civilian leadership you disagree with, or the fact that we elect Presidents rather than appointing them from the ranks of people you believe are more suitable? Bush was fond of saying how he always followed the recommendations of the commanders in the field. What he seldom mentioned was how many times he switched commanders to find ones that supported the policies his administration favored. That is, in fact a time honored tradition whether you are talking about the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican War, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In fact, LBJ's greatest weakness may have been the extent to which he continued to follow the recommendations of his generals no matter how often they were proven wrong.

dback

10-30-2009, 07:03 PM

I will admit that beyond your obvious emotion, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that McChrystal, who is the source of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, has no combat experience?

Cute Jeff

Are you suggesting that I, as a civilian, have no right to an opinion about a war that I am helping to pay for?

If that is the limit of your investment, you might ever so briefly consider the considerable investment some of us have and ask your Messiah to make a freaking decision.....fight the war or leave the shit hole!

Are you making assumptions (however erroneous) about the military records of my family?

I have no clue what your family's military service records are...if the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't....don't. Simple enough?

Are you suggesting that the President should overrule his commander on the ground with respect to rules of engagement, but accept his recommendations with reagrd to fundamental strategy without question? After reading your post repeatedly, I have no idea what you intended to say.

I'm not suggesting anything....I am shouting loudly....YOUR man should make a damn decision and you should quit blindly riding shotgun for him. He has been in office for 9 months now, make a strategy decision. My family members lives are at risk while he dithers away the time. I realize that is a modest investment compared to your dollars and the shine of your Ivy League education.

Consider if you will....none of my first post was aimed at General McChrystal. It was aimed at BHO, you and/or your ilk. See how simple that was. Hopefully I've cleared the muddy waters that you may wholly absorb the contents.

dback

10-30-2009, 07:14 PM

Is it the civilian leadership you disagree with,

No...IT'S THE CIVILIAN '''''LACK''''''' OF LEADERSHIP

What is it about that you don't understand Jeff? In comparison to my son or nephews...GM, AIG, health care etc. etc...... don't mean shit to me!!!!!! And listening to you trying to 'baffle us with your BS' gains you nothing.

dnf777

10-30-2009, 07:31 PM

This has NOTHING to do with Afghanistan, but I was just out in the field after dusk, trying to get some shots of the 3/4 gibbous moon, when I heard geese honkin'. I had just turned the camera towards a barn in the glow of a vapor lamp for a night time "nostalgia" shot (on a tripod), so couldn't reset and readjust .......but anyway....I could hear wings slicing the crisp evening air when a perfect V formation of geese glided in an eerie silhouette in front of a hazy, mysterious moon. Rather than make an ill-fated attempt to swing the camera, I just took about 5 seconds to capture in my mind one of the most beautiful images I can imagine. I didn't catch it on film, but it will be in my mind forever. This is the photographer's version of "the one that got away!"

Just a moment away from the POTUS to share a moment with friends.....even the ones who got it all wrong when it comes to politics! ;-)

Happy training guys and gals,
dave

YardleyLabs

10-30-2009, 07:37 PM

Cute Jeff

If that is the limit of your investment, you might ever so briefly consider the considerable investment some of us have and ask your Messiah to make a freaking decision.....fight the war or leave the shit hole!

I have no clue what your family's military service records are...if the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't....don't. Simple enough?

I'm not suggesting anything....I am shouting loudly....YOUR man should make a damn decision and you should quit blindly riding shotgun for him. He has been in office for 9 months now, make a strategy decision. My family members lives are at risk while he dithers away the time. I realize that is a modest investment compared to your dollars and the shine of your Ivy League education.

Consider if you will....none of my first post was aimed at General McChrystal. It was aimed at BHO, you and/or your ilk. See how simple that was. Hopefully I've cleared the muddy waters that you may wholly absorb the contents.
None of your first post was aimed at McChrystal, yet the rules of engagement that enrage you come from him. I have no issue whatsoever with your disagreement with those rules and no issue with your belief that a decision is needed quickly. My issue is with your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow idiotic, uncaring and unpatriotic, which is how I interpret your post. I don't believe that any of those shoes fit me or any of the other people you are attacking.

While I understand and respect the contributions of your son, your nephews, and their families, that does not justify your attacks. You keep trying to pigeon hole people to fit with your own biases. My own experience is that few people like to be put in pigeon holes because few people fit.

dback

10-30-2009, 10:42 PM

None of your first post was aimed at McChrystal, yet the rules of engagement that enrage you come from him.

There's mistake #1. General McChrystal's new rules of engagement do not 'enrage' me. We as a family have deferred to his judgement on this one. I "hope" that it actually came from him because if it is revealed that it came from the BHO administration....then I'll be enraged.

and no issue with your belief that a decision is needed quickly.

Gee thanks

My issue is with your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow idiotic, uncaring and unpatriotic, which is how I interpret your post.

Then you interpret wrong.

I don't believe that any of those shoes fit me or any of the other people you are attacking.

Really......I couldn't disagree with you more. If you have a freaking problem with the war, take it to the CIC....not the front door of a grieving widow and her three daughters.

If you are the CIC....formulate a damn plan, make it plain and coherent....and don't take 10 months to do it.

If you would have complained about indecision on GW's part....then complain about indecision on BHO's part.

While I understand and respect the contributions of your son, your nephews, and their families, that does not justify your attacks. You keep trying to pigeon hole people to fit with your own biases. My own experience is that few people like to be put in pigeon holes because few people fit.

Don't even begin to talk to me about 'understanding'.....unless.... your wife has cried herself to sleep at night for months on end. Tell me all about it ....after... your wife throws herself to the floor upon receiving a phone call that your son has 're-upped' for 4 more years or the tears of in-laws after being informed that a son has received small arms fire through his hand while piloting a Blackhawk. Similar to losing a child (which we have likewise lived through)....if you haven't been there....don't act like you have. I have some biases, some of them are clearly stated above, if you feel 'pigeon holed' maybe it's because some of them hit close to home. If you feel that I am not 'justified' in attacking those people then we were born on two different planets and not much you can say will sway my attitude about them.

Now here's my problem with you Jeff. You clearly have a great mind, but rather then using it for the betterment of a nation....you are obsessed with only the advancement of a political party. Thankfully our founding fathers chose nation over party. You are truely a waste of so much potential.

dnf777

10-31-2009, 06:53 AM

Now here's my problem with you Jeff. You clearly have a great mind, but rather then using it for the betterment of a nation....you are obsessed with only the advancement of a political party. Thankfully our founding fathers chose nation over party. You are truely a waste of so much potential.

That is one of the most selfish, "my way or the highway" attitudes I have heard put forth on this forum. While I may disagree strongly with some folks on political issues, I see NO basis whatsoever to question their patriotism or motivations! In fact, to claim to know one's obsessions and motivations, is highly presumptuous, especially from someone who just admonished him for claiming to understand someone else's feelings, so harshly. As strongly as I object to your above statements, I have no doubt whatsoever that you love this country as much as anyone, and want us to propser in peace. (I may question the means by which you choose to achieve those goals, but that's what this forum is all about)

I find it interesteing that on FB, my friends who seem to post endlessly how they support the troops, and put these tear-jerking video clips of soldiers and their children, set to dramatic music, then admonish you if you don't "send to 10 more friends" in chain letter fashion......have not served or have any kids serving, then tell me I'm unpatriotic for not supporting the wars! All the yard signs, yellow non-marring, removable yellow ribbon car magnets.....if you really support the troops....GO ENLIST so one of them can come home and be with his/her family and get a break!!!! All they're supporting is yellow ribbon making companies in China! (this is not aimed at anyone on this list....rather all the armchair patriots who question the motives of anyone other than their candidates)

Hew

10-31-2009, 08:12 AM

All the yard signs, yellow non-marring, removable yellow ribbon car magnets.....if you really support the troops....GO ENLIST so one of them can come home and be with his/her family and get a break!!!!
Unless you typed that sitting at an induction center waiting on your DI to arrive, by your "logic" (that's a stretch) you don't support the troops.

K G

10-31-2009, 11:55 AM

The BHO administration has made one significant leadership decision...under the new 'Rules of Engagement', my son may not return fire even when being fired upon if he has a path of escape or if there is any chance of the presence of civilians. :rolleyes:

PLEASE tell me that is not true?????!!!!!

Actually, this would follow directly from McChrystal's recommendations on strategy which place first priority on avoidance of civilian casualties even when that means not returning enemy fire.

So, one size fits all, eh? :rolleyes:

In an urban environment (Kabul), I can at least understand the logic...but the GREAT MAJORITY of instances where our troops are under fire are outside the urban areas, in areas where the civilian population is smart enough to stay out of.

"Rules of engagement" in a war...if that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is...the Taliban and al Qaeda don't care what OUR rules are, and they use OUR rules to THEIR advantage.

It's Vietnam (without jungle cover) all over again regards,

kg

Terry Britton

10-31-2009, 12:33 PM

We actually need more snipers overlooking hot spots where bombs and traps are placed by the Taliban. These are in remote areas, and can be overlooked. Making it too expensive for the Taliban to place bombs, they would slow up on placing bombs. This strategy worked in Iraq, but we aren't allowed to take out the enemy in the act of placing bombs in Afganistan anymore.

A few preventive snipers in strategic hotspots would do wonders, and actually allow us to hold some ground as safe rather than sacrificing our guys constantly in the same areas.

K G

10-31-2009, 12:44 PM

We actually need more snipers overlooking hot spots where bombs and traps are placed by the Taliban. These are in remote areas, and can be overlooked. Making it too expensive for the Taliban to place bombs, they would slow up on placing bombs. This strategy worked in Iraq, but we aren't allowed to take out the enemy in the act of placing bombs in Afganistan anymore.

A few preventive snipers in strategic hotspots would do wonders, and actually allow us to hold some ground as safe rather than sacrificing our guys constantly in the same areas.

Why is it looking less like a war strategy and more like a political strategy: let's let more of our guys get killed in Afghanistan so that public support will turn against the war, we'll withdraw by 2011 and get BHO re-elected in 2012 on the "I ended the war" ticket?

Good God...we have met the enemy and he is us (with apologies to Pogo) regards,

kg

YardleyLabs

10-31-2009, 12:47 PM

PLEASE tell me that is not true?????!!!!!

So, one size fits all, eh? :rolleyes:

In an urban environment (Kabul), I can at least understand the logic...but the GREAT MAJORITY of instances where our troops are under fire are outside the urban areas, in areas where the civilian population is smart enough to stay out of.

"Rules of engagement" in a war...if that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is...the Taliban and al Qaeda don't care what OUR rules are, and they use OUR rules to THEIR advantage.

It's Vietnam (without jungle cover) all over again regards,

kg
Actually, I didn't voice support or opposition to the rules of engagement. I read the McChrystal report, but do not know what orders were passed on to the troops beyond dback's post. One of McChrystal's core observations was that the incidence of civilian casualties had been much too high and that there was no chance whatsoever of winning a counter insurgency war without a dramatic reduction, even at the cost of increased troop losses and decreased effectiveness of attacks on the Taliban. I understand his argument but have no basis for evaluating it independently. It obviously places our troops in a near impossible position. The recommendation to reduce the areas covered by US troops by closing down smaller outposts follows logically since it reduces the number of troops placed in indefensible positions.

Unless you typed that sitting at an induction center waiting on your DI to arrive, by your "logic" (that's a stretch) you don't support the troops.

Operation Southern Watch, JTF-SWA 1998-99, 108th ADA.

Your turn Hew.

Hew

11-03-2009, 02:13 PM

Operation Southern Watch, JTF-SWA 1998-99, 108th ADA.

Your turn Hew.
You jabber so incessantly that perhaps you can't recall your own previous comments. As a refresher, you wrote ".....if you really support the troops....GO ENLIST so one of them can come home and be with his/her family and get a break!!!!" No active duty serviceman is sitting at home today with his family getting a break because you've taken their spot on the line, so therefore, you don't really support the troops. I recognize that employing your same logic against you creates a double negative of dim bulbery that threatens to tilt the earth off its axis, but I don't really think my point escaped you.

dnf777

11-03-2009, 05:56 PM

Hew,

I served my country for 14 years in uniform.
If you did also, thank you. If not, get off my case and don't tell me or any other veteran I/we haven't done our part.

ps...did you serve? Just askin'.

Hew

11-03-2009, 07:25 PM

I served my country for 14 years in uniform.
If you did also, thank you. If not, get off my case and don't tell me or any other veteran I/we haven't done our part.
Nice try attempting to turn this into a Hew vs. anybody who wears/or has worn the uniform. It doesn't fly because a) I'm not "on their case;" I'm on your's for your ridiculous definition of what you think it means to be supportive of service personnel, and b) because you're not like most people who have served/are serving their country in uniform. Most who have served/are serving don't publically denigrate the cause for which our current service personnel are fighting for like you do. So please, stow the martyr crap and move on with either a) defending your ridiculous notion that unless you're actively serving in the military now you can't be supportive of the troops, or b) admit that you mispoke when you made that bone-headed contention.

As for me, no I did not serve. My family has a long and proud military service history and I was born on an Army base and did the Army brat thing for awhile, so I have a pretty profound respect for the service and sacrafice of military personnel past and present.

dnf777

11-03-2009, 10:34 PM

Nice try attempting to turn this into a Hew vs. anybody who wears/or has worn the uniform. It doesn't fly because a) I'm not "on their case;" I'm on your's for your ridiculous definition of what you think it means to be supportive of service personnel, and b) because you're not like most people who have served/are serving their country in uniform. Most who have served/are serving don't publically denigrate the cause for which our current service personnel are fighting for like you do. So please, stow the martyr crap and move on with either a) defending your ridiculous notion that unless you're actively serving in the military now you can't be supportive of the troops, or b) admit that you mispoke when you made that bone-headed contention.

As for me, no I did not serve. My family has a long and proud military service history and I was born on an Army base and did the Army brat thing for awhile, so I have a pretty profound respect for the service and sacrafice of military personnel past and present.

The part of you applying your warped thoughts of "not being able to support troops unless in uniform" to me is undeserving of comment, except to say that its even childish for you, Hew. Nice try, but very pathetic.

As for the second part, you've done it again in your fashion. You can see launch pads from where you hunt, so you're a space cadet....you have friends who work at NASA, so you're an expert on space funding......now we learned you have family and were born on a military base, so your opinions and patriotism are better than mine, and you can make bogus accusations like I denigrate our troop's mission. Hey, I'm not going to argue with you, you probably have a friend who can solve Rubik's cube, and that makes you a genious!

Eat your sandwich, soldier

Hew

11-04-2009, 02:27 AM

The part of you applying your warped thoughts of "not being able to support troops unless in uniform" to me is undeserving of comment, except to say that its even childish for you, Hew. Nice try, but very pathetic. That's what you said. That you can't bring yourself to say you mispoke is no surprise and just goes on top of the heap of all the other outright BS you've spouted in the past.

As for the second part, you've done it again in your fashion. You can see launch pads from where you hunt, so you're a space cadet....you have friends who work at NASA, so you're an expert on space funding......now we learned you have family and were born on a military base, so your opinions and patriotism are better than mine, and you can make bogus accusations like I denigrate our troop's mission. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't support what the soldiers are currently fighting for and you've contended that the Iraq war was started to make Cheney more money. Most rational, sentient beings would say that's "denigrating our troop's mission. But then there's you. Hey, I'm not going to argue with you, you probably have a friend who can solve Rubik's cube, and that makes you a genious! Hey I'm not the one who has shattered all previous RTF records for most posts in the shortest amount of time. Has there ever been a thread on RTF that you read and didn't say to yourself, "Dang, I gotta hurry up and post my learned opinion because everyone must be just dying to know what I think."? You make Obama look like he has self-esteem issues.

.........................

dnf777

11-04-2009, 06:34 AM

.........................

Aaahh, Thank you Hew. After spending the night in the hospital repairing an incarcerated, strangulated hernia, I knew I could count on you for a good laugh, and you never let me down! I love it when you resort to the attacks again, as it shows you have NOTHING constructive to say, so you divert and attack. You keep it up, while the rest of us work! I really do enjoy your hyperbole. I used to feel the need to defend myself, but now I just chuckle.

Have a good one, cadet. ;-)

ducknwork

11-04-2009, 07:54 AM

On your mark, get set, GO!

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr104/sedwards_08/Hol2a_jpg.jpg

K G

11-04-2009, 08:27 AM

Aaahh, Thank you Hew. After spending the night in the hospital repairing an incarcerated, strangulated hernia, I knew I could count on you for a good laugh, and you never let me down! I love it when you resort to the attacks again, as it shows you have NOTHING constructive to say, so you divert and attack. You keep it up, while the rest of us work! I really do enjoy your hyperbole. I used to feel the need to defend myself, but now I just chuckle.

Have a good one, cadet. ;-)

His quotes on the post you ATTACKED are in bold type, DNF. Sometimes HEW makes folks look a little past the obvious to find his meaning. Some folks do a better job of interpreting that than others.....

Then there's you....;-)

Get well soon regards,

kg

dnf777

11-04-2009, 09:34 AM

His quotes on the post you ATTACKED are in bold type, DNF. Sometimes HEW makes folks look a little past the obvious to find his meaning. Some folks do a better job of interpreting that than others.....

Then there's you....;-)

Get well soon regards,

kg

I have to admit you're right. I don't spend lots of time trying to figure out the rantings of a lunatic! ;-)

Anyone who knows me would laugh at the accusations levied in the name of military service he made. The man I most respect in the world, my Grandfather, never wore a uniform because he was a coal miner. Apparently the army thought it was easier to recruit men to tote guns into battle than shovels into holes in the ground! Needless to say, I respect the word of my Grandfather over 1000 Hews, no matter what friend he may know in the army, or what base he was born on.

It's just a recurring theme....usually there is a discussion between folks in a civil manner, then it gets hijacked not by refutations of merit, but by personal attacks and diversions. I can only assume its because he wants to join the frackus, but has nothing to contribute, so we resort to name calling. I used to feel the need to defend, but now I just chuckle and chalk it up to "sticks and stones....". I apologize for clogging the forum with responses to such ridiculous jabs.

Have a good one,
dave

K G

11-04-2009, 12:10 PM

Dave, I gotta tell you...I personally think Hew is one of the more erudite posters here on RTF. I can see where and why you guys get sideways, for sure....

My grandfather was a coal-miner as well, in the hardscrabble hills of eastern Kentucky...allowed me to see first-hand the effects of black lung. What he suffered in the end closely mirrored Alzheimer's dementia. He was long retired when I first met him as a step-grandson of 6, but he was always good for a story over a breakfast of biscuits, butter, and Karo syrup. I've had some tough work days in my life, but when I think of the days he and your grandfather spent bringing coal out of the ground to fire up our manufacturing furnaces, I'm almost ashamed to try and compare my "tired" to his "whupped."

It's all good...we've all got it better than any generation before us, but I fear that the generations that we'll leave behind won't be able to say that...and it will be partially our fault. Every time we bail out a failed loan company or auto manufacturer, we mortgage our descendant's future...and I'm not okay with that. Short term pain = long term gain, and I don't believe for one minute that our current administration shares that philosophy. Be prepared; we'll ALL (except for the working poor) see one of the biggest income tax increases in our history within the next three years...mark it down, and it will be the first BIG step in our recovery...painful, yes, but required with all the money we DON'T have that we are GIVING AWAY now.

The rich STILL get richer regards,

kg

dnf777

11-04-2009, 12:29 PM

Dave, I gotta tell you...I personally think Hew is one of the more erudite posters here on RTF. I can see where and why you guys get sideways, for sure....

My grandfather was a coal-miner as well, in the hardscrabble hills of eastern Kentucky...allowed me to see first-hand the effects of black lung. What he suffered in the end closely mirrored Alzheimer's dementia. He was long retired when I first met him as a step-grandson of 6, but he was always good for a story over a breakfast of biscuits, butter, and Karo syrup. I've had some tough work days in my life, but when I think of the days he and your grandfather spent bringing coal out of the ground to fire up our manufacturing furnaces, I'm almost ashamed to try and compare my "tired" to his "whupped."

It's all good...we've all got it better than any generation before us, but I fear that the generations that we'll leave behind won't be able to say that...and it will be partially our fault. Every time we bail out a failed loan company or auto manufacturer, we mortgage our descendant's future...and I'm not okay with that. Short term pain = long term gain, and I don't believe for one minute that our current administration shares that philosophy. Be prepared; we'll ALL (except for the working poor) see one of the biggest income tax increases in our history within the next three years...mark it down, and it will be the first BIG step in our recovery...painful, yes, but required with all the money we DON'T have that we are GIVING AWAY now.

The rich STILL get richer regards,

kg

I couldn't agree more with you. I have the same thoughts, on those days when I complain about my job. I think, my Grandfather sure as hell didn't savor crawling down in a hole to load coal and breath powdered tar for 43 years, but it put a roof over his family's head, food on the table, and his three girls through school. We ain't got it too bad! Amen Brother!

So, it seems that the fellow who was commander in A'stan at the beginning is also giving advice. Based on O's previous statements, I would say that if A'stan was "ignored" when it should not have been, then this fellow's opinion should be of less import than McC's ... who was on the ground back then; and is still there in the trenches. JMO.

I believe that McC's original recommendation said there was about 12 mos to make a difference in the outcome in A'stan ... three months have now gone by. This article indicates it might be another month before a decision is made. That leaves only 8 more months on McC's timetable. Is delay, itself, dictating failure?

I'm all for giving such a commitment due consideration. However, O had been campaigning on this issue of A'stan being a "war of necessity". He got, by his own admission, unprecedented access by the previous administration. In reality, he's had a year already to give the matter consideration.

If I were a Taliban, I'd be telling the A'stan people that the Americans will bug out, so they better choose the right side now. If I were a Taliban, I'd be putting the screws to the situation to fortify the opinion that it is an unwinnable war for the US ... to influence US popular opinion and make O "blink".

Seems that Eikenberry would like more civilians to work with the farmers. Seems to me it would be easier to knock off these civilians without the extra troops to protect them. So, the State Dept is not willing to send more civilians. Sounds reasonable to me!

Seems, also, that Eikenberry has an ax to grind with McC. Still remember McC's demeanor on TV. He seems very much like a fellow who knows what he's talking about.

There is a lesson, surely, that nobody has figured out how to "win" in A'stan. We know what does NOT work. Perhaps part of the previous problem has been that those "invaders" had as their goal to "possess" A'stan. I do not believe that is the US goal. I'm more likely to see the US goal as protecting itself from the Taliban's ability to wage terrorism against the US & other western countries; and to do this by giving the A'stan populace an alternative to the Taliban's regressive way of life.

As for the question of corruption of the Karzai govt ... that was the same as the problem in Nam! That was a large part of failure there; the populace could not trust the govt we were supporting there. OTOH, take a look at our own government ... then think about whether we know how to get rid of corruption in government :-)

ducknwork

11-12-2009, 11:54 AM

I know that we do not get to see the 'rest of the story' and we don't have all the information available to us. What I do not understand is if McC says we need 'x' to ensure victory, (victory is obviously what should be working towards) why would we not do what the man that knows more about the war than anyone else recommends? How can we send 25% of the troops that he says are necessary and still expect to get the job 100% complete (within the same time frame, I might add)? That math just doesn't add up to me.

Gerry Clinchy

11-12-2009, 01:25 PM

That math just doesn't add up to me.

Nobody said that politicians could do math ... they obviously don't know how to balance a budget :-)

On TV, McC was asked if he believed A'stan was winnable. He said he did, and if ever he did not believe so, he would not hesitate to tell the Pres.

I think it will be a very politically-motivated decision for O. If he sends a lot of troops, he'll get a lot of flak from a lot of people. In order to overcome that flak, McC will have to make a lot of progress in A'stan by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

If he limits the # of troops he commits, that may appease some people. As long as nothing disastrous happens before the 2012 elections, he'd be okay politically on that decision. This would save his political backside for now, but the end result in A'stan would not look too good on his historical resume if McC is correct & only much larger #s of troops will work.

There are obviously several on this forum who believe we should just get out of A'stan. We can already see that A'stan is important to protecting the nukes in P'stan from becoming Taliban or AQ nukes. I think that is the real issue of why A'stan has been called a war of necessity.

Don't think India would be too happy with nukes in the hands of the T & AQ either. Aren't Hindus just as much infidels as the rest of us non-Muslims?

If Americans are tired of these wars, one can only imagine how tired of war the Afghans are! I thought this comment from the second page of the article was a sign of hope:

Perhaps most important, Afghans are tired of war, and seeing the benefits of a decade of peace might be enough to encourage new kinds of decisions.

Ghulam Mohaiuddin, a farmer, seethes when he remembers the past.
“The jihad was useless,” he said, sitting cross-legged in his mud-walled house.

Suddenly, a loud blast went off, startling his guests. He laughed. It was the sound of canal construction, not a bomb.

“Now we’ve put down our weapons and started building,” he said, smiling.

ducknwork

11-24-2009, 10:05 AM

I'll be waiting with bated breath...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan

Read the entire thing yourself, but here are some highlights that jump out at me...

Gibbs said that the subject of a war tax on the wealthy, proposed by a handful of leading Democrats, has not come up yet in the president's extensive war council meetings. But the idea, though unlikely to pass Congress, is one way for Democrats who are coming to dislike the war in greater numbers to challenge the president to confront the cost of any escalation.

I wonder how much it will cost to lose? Maybe we should take that into consideration. Not everything is about money and some decisions must be made based on other factors.

The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.

Shall we add this to the messiah's list of accomplishments?

McChrystal's schedule for full deployment has it taking nearly two years, military officials said.

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement...

These two comments seem almost contradictory. You know that Obama wants to get out of there sooner than McC is even talking about the full deployment being completed. He definitely wants to be out of there by Nov. 2012...

Roger Perry

11-24-2009, 01:26 PM

A full troop withdrawl completed by Nov 2012 would be quite an accomplishment, something Bush failed to do in 8 years. Should we add that to Bush's failed accomplishments?

ducknwork

11-24-2009, 03:19 PM

A full troop withdrawl completed by Nov 2012 would be quite an accomplishment, something Bush failed to do in 8 years. Should we add that to Bush's failed accomplishments?

I don't recall him saying that he would withdrawal the troops from A stan in a given time period. Obama has campaigned on the idea of bringing them home.

BTW, why so defensive? I only posted to open for discussion, not to attack anyone...

Don't let your mouth write a check your butt can't cash regards,

road kill

11-24-2009, 03:47 PM

So.....we are surrendering??!!??!!

PEACE!!

Roger Perry

11-24-2009, 05:46 PM

So.....we are surrendering??!!??!!

PEACE!!

No, just doing something Bush could not do.

WASHINGTON - Signaling an imminent decision on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
The president said he would announce his decision on how many additional soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan after Thanksgiving.
The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or possibly Wednesday, in a national address. Congressional hearings will follow immediately.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. forces to the eight-year-old conflict. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting early this month, when he told military planners to rearrange the timing and composition of some of the deployments.

That is the kind of talk that I like to hear, "Finish the job"

WaterDogRem

11-24-2009, 06:08 PM

No, just doing something Bush could not do.

WASHINGTON - Signaling an imminent decision on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
The president said he would announce his decision on how many additional soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan after Thanksgiving.
The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or possibly Wednesday, in a national address. Congressional hearings will follow immediately.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. forces to the eight-year-old conflict. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting early this month, when he told military planners to rearrange the timing and composition of some of the deployments.

That is the kind of talk that I like to hear, "Finish the job"

"obama to settle on a middle-ground option" sounds more like a half-arse "Finish the job" kind of thinking. Either we go full IN or Out, none of this middle ground bs. Obama is more concerned about the Political backlash to go FULL In or Out thou.

Bush should have finished both of these wars, but too many folks in this country are too sissy & PC to do what really needs to be done.

Roger Perry

11-24-2009, 07:06 PM

"obama to settle on a middle-ground option" sounds more like a half-arse "Finish the job" kind of thinking. Either we go full IN or Out, none of this middle ground bs. Obama is more concerned about the Political backlash to go FULL In or Out thou.

Bush should have finished both of these wars, but too many folks in this country are too sissy & PC to do what really needs to be done.

Show me where Bush said he would finish the job on his watch? Better yet, check with FOX entertainment, I am sure they reported it somewhere.

road kill

11-24-2009, 07:26 PM

No, just doing something Bush could not do.

WASHINGTON - Signaling an imminent decision on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
The president said he would announce his decision on how many additional soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan after Thanksgiving.
The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or possibly Wednesday, in a national address. Congressional hearings will follow immediately.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. forces to the eight-year-old conflict. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting early this month, when he told military planners to rearrange the timing and composition of some of the deployments.

That is the kind of talk that I like to hear, "Finish the job"

You are right, President Bush would not surrender.

President Obama will apoligize to them while bowing!!:shock:

Roger Perry

11-24-2009, 08:31 PM

You are right, President Bush would not surrender.

President Obama will apoligize to them while bowing!!:shock:

I do not recall reading that Obama is going to surrender. I read he was going to destroy terrorist networks in the region and finish the job, which only can mean finish the job Bush started.

ducknwork

11-24-2009, 11:14 PM

I do not recall reading that Obama is going to surrender. I read he was going to destroy terrorist networks in the region and finish the job, which only can mean finish the job Bush started.

I am so sick and tired of hearing Obama vs Bush BS spewed by all the Obama cheerleaders out there. Maybe the American President is just going to do his job and take care of America. One American President started a war that, for reasons that we do not know , did not get completed on a timeline:rolleyes:, so rather than 'showing him up' (as it is being billed as), the current president is simply doing what he SHOULD BE DOING.

Roger Perry

11-25-2009, 09:14 AM

On Afghanistan, Obama goes with head, not gut

Approach is ‘diametrically the opposite of the previous administration’

President George W. Bush once boasted, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player." The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, "You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions."

Steve Amrein

11-25-2009, 11:28 AM

My guess is that his so called decission will be made and announced this friday. It will be hardly covered and gone by Monday. Only folks that actually are concerned about it will know.

Steve Amrein

11-25-2009, 11:32 AM

On Afghanistan, Obama goes with head, not gut

Approach is ‘diametrically the opposite of the previous administration’

President George W. Bush once boasted, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player." The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, "You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions."

Maybe I am wrong but I am pretty sure this is no longer W's to decide. It time for O to put on his big boy pants, get out of campaign mode and do his job and make a decision and act like the comander in cheif.

Roger Perry

11-25-2009, 11:53 AM

Maybe I am wrong but I am pretty sure this is no longer W's to decide. It time for O to put on his big boy pants, get out of campaign mode and do his job and make a decision and act like the comander in cheif.

Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Obama stated he is sending in more troops to destroy terrorist networks in the area and finish the job. How much more can it be said in plain language?

Bayou Magic

11-25-2009, 12:09 PM

Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Obama stated he is sending in more troops to destroy terrorist networks in the area and finish the job. How much more can it be said in plain language?

Talk is cheap. He states a lot of things. The time has come for effective decisions and actions. Get out of the campaign mode, get off the fence, and do not leave the troops hanging.

fp

Steve Amrein

11-25-2009, 12:14 PM

Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Obama stated he is sending in more troops to destroy terrorist networks in the area and finish the job. How much more can it be said in plain language?

You think he will send in the 40,000 that was requested or with all his communnity organizing skills will he pick something on his own. How many troops have died while waiting for reinforcements? BTW before you start about Bush I think he did a crappy job with A-stan as well.

K G

11-25-2009, 12:15 PM

I do not recall reading that Obama is going to surrender. I read he was going to destroy terrorist networks in the region and finish the job, which only can mean finish the job Bush started.

On Afghanistan, Obama goes with head, not gut

Approach is ‘diametrically the opposite of the previous administration’

President George W. Bush once boasted, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player." The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, "You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions."

Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Obama stated he is sending in more troops to destroy terrorist networks in the area and finish the job. How much more can it be said in plain language?

Let us all pray that this strategy works.

He's got about two years to make it happen to have even a remote HOPE of getting a second term.

There is no try....there is only do, or do not (thanks, Yoda...;-)) regards,

kg

ducknwork

11-25-2009, 12:18 PM

On Afghanistan, Obama goes with head, not gut

Approach is ‘diametrically the opposite of the previous administration’

President George W. Bush once boasted, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player." The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, "You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions."

Meanwhile, while he has been thinking...

The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.

Roger Perry

11-25-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=528987#post528987)
On Afghanistan, Obama goes with head, not gut

Approach is ‘diametrically the opposite of the previous administration’

President George W. Bush once boasted, "I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player." The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, "You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions."

Meanwhile, while he has been thinking...

Quote:
The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.

And if Bush would have took time to think, we would not be in two wars now and would not have any of our armed forces killed over there at all, would we?

ducknwork

11-25-2009, 02:59 PM

Are you saying that we should not have gone to A-stan at all?

And if A-stan was one of Obama's top items that he campaigned on, why has it been a year before a decision has been made? Could something have not been decided in March or April?

Don't forget 9/11 regards,

Roger Perry

11-25-2009, 06:38 PM

Are you saying that we should not have gone to A-stan at all?

And if A-stan was one of Obama's top items that he campaigned on, why has it been a year before a decision has been made? Could something have not been decided in March or April?

Don't forget 9/11 regards,

If Bush would have taken some time to analize the situation, he would have realized that our main objective in going into Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda leaders. Bush could have sent in Army and Marine Special Forces or Navy SEALS to complete the task, instead he sent in the Air Force and the Army to take on the whole Afghanistan people. Now we are stuck fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

K G

11-25-2009, 10:44 PM

If Bush would have taken some time to analize the situation, he would have realized that our main objective in going into Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda leaders. Bush could have sent in Army and Marine Special Forces or Navy SEALS to complete the task, instead he sent in the Air Force and the Army to take on the whole Afghanistan people. Now we are stuck fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

Roger your wish has come true. BHO is in-charge now...he has a plan...what happens from here on out belongs to him. If you hope to have a SHRED of credibility on this site, your M.O. from here on out WON'T be to blame Bush 43 if something goes wrong with BHO's plan. HE is President now, Roger...not George W. Bush.

Capiche?

kg

Pete

11-26-2009, 12:24 AM

At first I thought going over to Afgan.. was a good thing ,,,,,you know lets kick there ass and all that stuff ,,,,,but now since I know we court marshal our navy seals for punching terrorists in the mouth now I think its not such a good idea

Lets bring em home and see if they get the same treatment for punching out our politians
i'd love a ring side seat

p

BonMallari

11-26-2009, 01:16 AM

If Bush would have taken some time to analize the situation, he would have realized that our main objective in going into Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda leaders. Bush could have sent in Army and Marine Special Forces or Navy SEALS to complete the task, instead he sent in the Air Force and the Army to take on the whole Afghanistan people. Now we are stuck fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

Have you ever read Marcus Luttrell's book Lone Survivor, they were Seal team 10 in Afghanistan..Got to believe there more besides that but since CNN wasnt on the beach to greet them like in the Desert Storm invasion we never heard about them..

IMHO any Afghanistan proposal is almost counterproductive because you have a corrupt govt in Pakistan next door that is unwilling to give total access and the means to succeed there require a less than conventional warfare which this administration will probably never allow...the US military is never allowed to finish the job, they always seem to stop just short..the last time they finished a war was with Japan and we all know how that ended...

God Bless our Troops all over the world on this Thanksgiving Day and every other day too...

Gerry Clinchy

11-26-2009, 09:43 AM

If Bush would have taken some time to analize the situation, he would have realized that our main objective in going into Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda leaders. Bush could have sent in Army and Marine Special Forces or Navy SEALS to complete the task, instead he sent in the Air Force and the Army to take on the whole Afghanistan people. Now we are stuck fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

I really don't think it would have been possible to just take care of Bin Laden and expect the rest of the AQ & Taliban problem to "go away". The capture of Sadam did not stop the insurgency in Iraq.

If you agree that it was appropriate to enter A'stan because Bin Laden and AQ were the perps, then you have to take responsibility for the long-term as well, since just getting rid of Bin Laden wasn't going to be enough to get rid of the AQ (or Taliban) jihadist threats.

We should not ignore the progress of education made by CAI. I truly believe that such long-term efforts are the key to real success in A'stan. As mentioned in the article, though, you don't accomplish these long-term, society-changing goals "overnight" (he mentioned taking 8 years! to convince the local mullah that education for girls would be a good thing that not go against Islamic beliefs).

My sense is that McC's long-term program is about incorporating this kind of societal change, so that the average A'stan citizen no longer wants to support what the Taliban has to offer in comparison. Education, agriculture, clean water, basic health care ... more powerful tools than head-bashing. Give the populace something worth defending (their own welfare) and they WILL defend themselves against those who would take it from them (AQ and T).

OTOH, this does not mean that AQ and T will not terrorize the populace and our troops during the accomplishing of these goals. Yet, it is the only way to truly defeat the groups who would gladly plan another debacle like 9-11 if given the opportunity.

Uncle Bill

11-26-2009, 04:02 PM

That's brilliant, Joe. And just how do we do that? March right on into Pakistan and commence to killing al Qaeda? Cross our fingers and ask the Paksitan govt. real nicely to go kill al Qaeda? Biden is such a freakin' mental lightweight, and such a consummate spouter of politician double-speak. It's scary that that dunce is one heartbeat away...

:rolleyes:
And his hypocrite supporters are the first to rag on Palin's intelligence. GFF...but then it's never about common sense...it's ALWAYS political.

What's never talked about is WHY that mental midget was chosen. I've never heard anyone dispute my belief...he was selected as being better presidential protection than a plethora of bodyguards. AND THEN, when you also realize what is in line next, you can truely see how well protected BHO is.

UB

Roger Perry

11-27-2009, 10:52 AM

Here are some of the things that led up to the 9/11 attack on the world trade center buildings. Note the dates and what and when things were known. Then tell me again how Clinton was responsible. Your guy was in office when all hell broke loose.

In the months leading up to 11 September US agencies and officials received a series of intelligence warnings and reports of suspicious activity.
December 2000
Intelligence agencies report "an increase in traffic concerning terrorist activities".
February 2001
Instructors at a flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the poor English and limited flying skills of one of their students, Hani Hanjour.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/pearly/bush/bbc_hani.jpg
Hani Hanjour aroused suspicion at flying school
They believe his pilot's licence may be fraudulent.
The FAA finds it is genuine - but school administrators tell Mr Hanjour he will not qualify for an advanced certificate.
Mr Hanjour allegedly flew a hijacked plane into the Pentagon on 11 September.
April - May 2001
Washington receives a "specific threat" about possible al-Qaeda attacks against US targets in the Middle East, the Arabian peninsular and Europe.
May 2001
State Department issues a statement on 11 May warning that "American citizens abroad may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation."
On 29 May, the department warns US citizens to "take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness to reduce their vulnerability".
June 2001
The FAA issues a warning to airlines of possible hijackings.
The State Department issues a worldwide caution and closes the US embassies in Senegal and Bahrain to the public to "review its security posture".
July 2001
An unnamed FBI agent in Phoenix, Arizona, issues a memo calling for an investigation into the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolled in pilot training programmes.
The agent warns that al-Qaeda could be attempting to place terrorists as pilots, security guards or aircraft maintenance workers.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/pearly/bush/bbc_rice.jpg
Condoleezza Rice has defended the government's handling of terror intelligence
However, senior FBI officials pay little attention to the memo.
On 2 July the FBI issues a warning of potential threats overseas and adds that domestic attacks cannot be discounted.
President Bush asks National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to review and assess the apparent upsurge in threat warnings .
A counterterrorism group coordinated by the National Security Council meets due to heightened concern over possible attacks in Paris, Turkey and Rome.
The US goes on a heightened state of alert after an apparent threat to President Bush at the G8 summit in Genoa.
August 2001
As the third anniversary of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania passes, the FBI issues a further warning urging caution.
On 6 August, President Bush receives a report detailing Osama Bin Laden's alleged operating methods, including hijacking. The report is based on intelligence data from a 1998 British report according to officials.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/pearly/bush/bbc_zach.jpg
Zacharias Moussaoui : Allegedly trained by al-Qaeda
On 13 August, the FBI arrests Zacharias Moussaoui, a French national who had raised suspicions among instructors at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Minnesota.
Mr Moussaoui had reportedly paid $6,800 in cash and asked for training on large jets, despite his limited experience.
On 16 August the FAA warns that terrorists may have developed a range of modified mobile phones, key chains and pens for use as weapons.
French intelligence agencies later disclose that they believe Mr Moussaoui to be a radical Islamist, who has trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
He is later charged with being involved in the 11 September attacks.
In late August, the CIA issues an alert to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service over two men it is treating as suspects in the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen.
However it is later disclosed that one of the men - Khalid al-Midhar - had arrived in the US on 4 July.
The FBI are warned, but fail to track him down.
September 2001
On 7 September, the State Department warns of possible attacks on US military facilities or personnel in Japan and Korea.
An FBI agent who questioned Moussaoui reports a vaguely-defined terrorist plot targeting the World Trade Center to his superiors.

Roger Perry

11-27-2009, 02:32 PM

Have you ever read Marcus Luttrell's book Lone Survivor, they were Seal team 10 in Afghanistan..Got to believe there more besides that but since CNN wasnt on the beach to greet them like in the Desert Storm invasion we never heard about them..

IMHO any Afghanistan proposal is almost counterproductive because you have a corrupt govt in Pakistan next door that is unwilling to give total access and the means to succeed there require a less than conventional warfare which this administration will probably never allow...the US military is never allowed to finish the job, they always seem to stop just short..the last time they finished a war was with Japan and we all know how that ended...

God Bless our Troops all over the world on this Thanksgiving Day and every other day too...

So you are saying we should Nuk Afghanistan so our military can win a war?

subroc

11-27-2009, 03:03 PM

Roger

You need to just say the words.

Bush is responsible for 9/11 or better yet Bush caused 9/11.

That should make you feel better.

Uncle Bill

11-27-2009, 03:27 PM

Roger

You need to just say the words.

Bush is responsible for 9/11 or better yet Bush caused 9/11.

That should make you feel better.

Sorry to disagree, Joe...but nothing short of hearing Bush got whacked while hunting with his Veep, who subsequently kicked over from a heart attack, will make Roger feel better.

There's no way he'll ever understand that the slipshod way Clinton failed to handle the terrorist attacks while he was in office, even to the degree of not even recognizing they WERE attacks by terrorists, emboldended the enemy to the acts they thought they could continue to get away with.

Much like what the PC leadership is involved in today. They will NEVER understand who or what the hell they are dealing with, until the towel-heads start lobbing RPGs into the whitehouse, and have Time's Square booby trapped with IEDs.

Only after a few hundred more Americans are killed on our soil, will Roger and the pathetic mental midgets that find comfort in what they believe, start having questions about what they have enabled. THEN, they will be finding excuses for keeping their asses protected much like they are doing now.

UB

BonMallari

11-27-2009, 03:36 PM

So you are saying we should Nuk Afghanistan so our military can win a war?

Absolutely NOT...I am leaning toward the side of getting out of Afghanistan completely..IMHO its a war that we cant win, why would I want to Nuke a country because of Bin Laden, there are other alternatives but I dont think the risk and losses justify the objective

road kill

11-27-2009, 04:05 PM

Absolutely NOT...I am leaning toward the side of getting out of Afghanistan completely..IMHO its a war that we cant win, why would I want to Nuke a country because of Bin Laden, there are other alternatives but I dont think the risk and losses justify the objective

Bon, I am as conservative as anyone (almost).
I am with you 100% on this.
We need to get out of Afgahnistan.

We couldn't win there with a full commitment, we certainly can't win with the half azzed commitment of this regime!!

Just sayin'

dnf777

11-27-2009, 06:51 PM

I'd love to see a poll on what our A-stan strategy should be: all in, all out, partial increase, etc... BEFORE Obama announces his plan. Whatever it is, afterwards, I"m sure the right will be anti-whatever Obama says. Regardless of prior positions, or anything else.

Gerry Clinchy

11-27-2009, 08:03 PM

Rumor has it that O is leaning toward adding 30 to 35K troops, and getting allies to kick in another 5K to 10K.

A'stan is a must win situation. O, himself, stated, that it is a war of necessity.

I believe we can win ... by expanding programs like CAI ... education, agriculture, health care. That is not something any other "invader" of A'stan has done.

I honestly believe that Islamic men shudder to think how educating their women will change their world! Each major religion has had is "reformation" ... as education, especially of women, expands, I believe the same will happen to Islam. The new generation will make it happen.

I think you can see this is exactly what is happening in Iran. It's taken 30 years for it to start there because of lack of outside influence & severe repression. It may take 30 more.

Fighting the corruption is the big elephant in the room. THAT is something the U.S. has not been able to do for itself! I'm not sure how well we can do it for someone else if we haven't learned how to do it ourselves.

JDogger

11-28-2009, 12:48 AM

All in, most likely. Sure, A'Stan is a POS. Poised as it is though, on the southern border of the former Soviet Union, it provides an excellent platform for conventional eavesdropping, listening posts that satellites do not provide,(known positions, and times of pass overs, etc.)
I imagine our presence will be there for some time to come.

JD

dnf777

11-28-2009, 07:40 AM

Rumor has it that O is leaning toward adding 30 to 35K troops, and getting allies to kick in another 5K to 10K.

A'stan is a must win situation. O, himself, stated, that it is a war of necessity.

I believe we can win ... by expanding programs like CAI ... education, agriculture, health care. That is not something any other "invader" of A'stan has done.

I honestly believe that Islamic men shudder to think how educating their women will change their world! Each major religion has had is "reformation" ... as education, especially of women, expands, I believe the same will happen to Islam. The new generation will make it happen.

I think you can see this is exactly what is happening in Iran. It's taken 30 years for it to start there because of lack of outside influence & severe repression. It may take 30 more.

Fighting the corruption is the big elephant in the room. THAT is something the U.S. has not been able to do for itself! I'm not sure how well we can do it for someone else if we haven't learned how to do it ourselves.

I've never heard it said better! A few bullets and bombs may be in order, but chalkboards and books will do MUCH more to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century as a peaceful partner in the middle east.

K G

11-28-2009, 09:05 AM

Roger will never accept the FACT that 9/11 would NEVER have happened if Clinton had taken out bin Laden when he had the chance.

He'd still have plenty to bitch about....just not Bush 43/s "responsibility" for 9/11....;-)

BHO can't keep party crashers out of a state dinner....what do we have to look forward to next, regards, :smile:

kg

K G

11-28-2009, 09:07 AM

I've never heard it said better! A few bullets and bombs may be in order, but chalkboards and books will do MUCH more to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century as a peaceful partner in the middle east.

Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll believe it has a chance of happening....

Extremist regards,

kg

dnf777

11-28-2009, 09:47 AM

It already worked in Pakistan and Lebanon.
Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson.

Gerry Clinchy

11-28-2009, 11:26 AM

Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll believe it has a chance of happening....

Extremist regards,

kg

Christianity went through aberrations of "the good word" ... i.e. things like The Inquisition, the Crusades, witch trials in Salem. Judaism was once a religion that focused on military might, but today there are a lot of Jews of the "Reformed" persuasion.

We read often of the transformation that takes place for Muslims who are raised in a western environment, Dr. Hassan notwithstanding.

K G

12-02-2009, 08:48 AM

Christianity went through aberrations of "the good word" ... i.e. things like The Inquisition, the Crusades, witch trials in Salem. Judaism was once a religion that focused on military might, but today there are a lot of Jews of the "Reformed" persuasion.

We read often of the transformation that takes place for Muslims who are raised in a western environment, Dr. Hassan notwithstanding.

Aberrations, indeed...but we can hardly compare the middle ages and the 1700's to modern times, now can we? Mass communications, airplanes as weapons, suicide bombers, IEDs, and the random slaughter of innocents sort of put a different spin on the imposition of one's belief "system."

kg

dnf777

12-02-2009, 09:39 AM

Aberrations, indeed...but we can hardly compare the middle ages and the 1700's to modern times, now can we? Mass communications, airplanes as weapons, suicide bombers, IEDs, and the random slaughter of innocents sort of put a different spin on the imposition of one's belief "system."

kg

Human nature doesn't change. Only the technology he wields it with.

K G

12-02-2009, 09:43 AM

Oh yeah....now the extremists can kill on a MASS basis rather than onesies and twosies....

kg

Gerry Clinchy

12-02-2009, 03:59 PM

Aberrations, indeed...but we can hardly compare the middle ages and the 1700's to modern times, now can we? Mass communications, airplanes as weapons, suicide bombers, IEDs, and the random slaughter of innocents sort of put a different spin on the imposition of one's belief "system."

kg

There is a lot of evidence that many of the people in A'stan (and, no doubt, many other places in the world) have not advanced much beyond the 1700s into the modern times as we have.

Heard/read that one of the problems the US troops face in some areas of A'stan is a 70% illiteracy rate. Can we even imagine what life would be like if 70% of the people in our own towns could not read? How easy for the Taliban or AQ to lead those people down a yellow brick road!

It is not surprising that when we hear of uprisings against authority in Iran, it is in Tehran. In China, it is Beijing. The people in those more highly developed areas of those countries, especially the younger people, begin to gain access to the technology that breaks through the isolation that the repressive authorities try to prevent reaching their populace. These populated centers are also the places where the populace may be exposed to outside visitors, who may give them an idea that what their government is trying to make them believe is not entirely true.

Hew

12-02-2009, 04:30 PM

Education's nice, but it isn't the be all/end all. The Iraqis were one of the most educated and literate people in the Middle East and they tolerated Saddam Hussein for how many decades? The founders/leaders of al Qaeda were all educated and affluent, as were the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11. I'd have to search for it, but there was a study that indicated that Palestinian suicide bombers had a higher level of education than the avg. Palestinian. Education, infrastructure, democracy and freedom, access to technology, etc. are important cogs, but in a third world country, all of those things are ultimately either protected or extinguished at gunpoint. Winning the war will ultimately require inflicting enough damage on the enemy so that they're either dead or unwilling/unable to continue fighting.

road kill

12-02-2009, 06:20 PM

An opinion on Afgahnistan.
I have stated it before.

GET OUT ASAP!!

It's a no win........:(

dnf777

12-02-2009, 06:52 PM

An opinion on Afgahnistan.
I have stated it before.

GET OUT ASAP!!

It's a no win........:(

I'm not sure any of us have all the info to make a truly informed decision, but from where I stand, what I see, I think I agree with you, RK. The AQ network is world wide, not just in Astan. The 911 attack was planned from Germany, Spain, and the US. There may be good reason to occupy (or whatever they call it now) A-stan, but I wouldn't let that give me a false sense of security, and I'm not sure I buy even that. It's nice to agree once in a while!

road kill

12-02-2009, 06:55 PM

I'm not sure any of us have all the info to make a truly informed decision, but from where I stand, what I see, I think I agree with you, RK. The AQ network is world wide, not just in Astan. The 911 attack was planned from Germany, Spain, and the US. There may be good reason to occupy (or whatever they call it now) A-stan, but I wouldn't let that give me a false sense of security, and I'm not sure I buy even that. It's nice to agree once in a while!
remember what happened when we "Vietnamized" the war??

Lot's of people are gonna die while we are there and after we leave.
Khmer Rouge anyone?

Been there, done that!!

Henry V

12-02-2009, 08:59 PM

An opinion on Afgahnistan.
I have stated it before.

GET OUT ASAP!!

It's a no win........:(

Wait, that sounds like CUT AND RUN to me. Back in December 2005 the GOP and the right wing media were on message with this label everywhere. For example from John Cornyn
Let me just say -- then we'll be glad to answer any questions you have -- this morning the Senate was given an importance choice: on one hand whether to cut and run when it comes to our commitment in Iraq, or on the other hand to stay and finish the job and then to bring our troops home as soon as possible, leaving a relatively stable democracy in place in Iraq.
I believe that they also told us that this approach in Iraq was disrespectful to men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nations freedoms.

I know, I know, this is different situation and could not be another episode of "as the hypocrisy turns".

road kill

12-02-2009, 09:13 PM

Wait, that sounds like CUT AND RUN to me. Back in December 2005 the GOP and the right wing media were on message with this label everywhere. For example from John Cornyn
I believe that they also told us that this approach in Iraq was disrespectful to men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nations freedoms.

I know, I know, this is different situation and could not be another episode of "as the hypocrisy turns".
Listen, I don't cut and run, that is not what this is.
This situation is politicized.
People are going to die for NO reason.
And more people will die for even less of a reason.

Do not prolong this......we are not fighting to win here.

Gerry Clinchy

12-02-2009, 09:29 PM

Education's nice, but it isn't the be all/end all. The Iraqis were one of the most educated and literate people in the Middle East and they tolerated Saddam Hussein for how many decades? The founders/leaders of al Qaeda were all educated and affluent, as were the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11. I'd have to search for it, but there was a study that indicated that Palestinian suicide bombers had a higher level of education than the avg. Palestinian. Education, infrastructure, democracy and freedom, access to technology, etc. are important cogs, but in a third world country, all of those things are ultimately either protected or extinguished at gunpoint. Winning the war will ultimately require inflicting enough damage on the enemy so that they're either dead or unwilling/unable to continue fighting.

Torture, intimidation, murder, etc. kept the people in line. Sadam also used, I believe, the long standing Sunni/Shiite adversarial situation to keep the populace taking out their frustration and anger on each other.

Ironically, maybe the Iraqis would have taken care of Sadam themselves given a bit more time. However, in a violent upheaval that it would have taken might have seen his replacement no better than Sadam was. It's taken a long time to see the beginnings of oppositioin in Iran. Due to the repressiveness of the govt there, it will likely take a long time for change to occur. They do have the advantage of some leaders for opposition.

The challenge is leaving A'stan with enough improvement in living conditions & a tyrant-less govt. The tribal chieftain heritage and generations of corruption that came with it, is surely the real challenge there.

dnf777

12-02-2009, 10:08 PM

Listen, I don't cut and run, that is not what this is.
This situation is politicized.
People are going to die for NO reason.
And more people will die for even less of a reason.

Do not prolong this......we are not fighting to win here.

I respect your opinion on this, and your courage to state it, as it will likely draw fire from many angles. The same arguments you pose for getting out of A-stan, could for the most part, be applied to Iraq. I know many will disagree with that, but that's ok. We don't know what Obama, Gates, McC all know, but from what I can piece together from various news sources across the spectrum, I agree with you. Lets get the hell out. Remember, 9-11 was planned in apartment rooms in Germany, Spain, and the US by largely Saudis......NOT Afghans in Afghanistan.

I've had trouble with the argument of "lets take the war to them, so they don't bring it to us". How is this to be accomplished, in light of the above? Do we take the war to Germany and Spain? Certainly not a military war. Counter-intel, financial network disruption, and education is the way to win this "war". And we can do A LOT of that for what we're currently putting into bullets and bombs. I'm not anti-war per se, but am pro-what's gonna work!

Marvin S

12-02-2009, 10:33 PM

Are we still in Germany & Japan - Truman's fault
Korea - that would be Eisenhower
Vietnam - I don't think so - but millions were slaughtered, is that OK?
The African countries - they all have issues - We're not present - is that OK?
Bosnia - that would be Clinton's war. Why was it different than Somalia or any other African nation with a thug dictator?
Iraq - Bush set it up & now we have some withdrawal, & they want us to stay
Afghanistan - I hope we are successful & can get the country headed in the correct direction. I support our being there for as long as that takes.

Hew

12-03-2009, 12:45 AM

Wait, that sounds like CUT AND RUN to me. Back in December 2005 the GOP and the right wing media were on message with this label everywhere. For example from John Cornyn
I believe that they also told us that this approach in Iraq was disrespectful to men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nations freedoms.

I know, I know, this is different situation and could not be another episode of "as the hypocrisy turns".
You're confusing me, Henry. In order for there to be hypocrisy wouldn't Cornyn, the GOP and the right wing media have to be calling for us to leave Afghanistan? Who are some of the hypocritical "they's" that you referred to above?

If you want examples of inconsistency or hypocrisy, look at the Dem politicians (and at least one person on this message board). Instead of having the balls to come out against the war in Afghanistan (how could they, when for years they pretended that was the "good" war being ignored by Bush?), they cravenly wring their hands about the economic costs of the war...while at the same time they clap their hands in glee at money being pissed down a tube with the Porkulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, Obama Care, and an unprecedented growth of the deficit.

dnf777

12-03-2009, 05:27 AM

I support our being there for as long as that takes.

Exactly HOW do you support this? Are you willing to sign a blank check to the IRS.....an "open ended" tax for an open ended war?

Before we commit to a long, drawn out war with no exit strategy (which hopefully we're NOT), we should check with our Chinese banker friends, who will be floating us the loan to pay for this. And check with our kids and grandkids, since we're handing the payment books to them. Oh, I forgot, republicans only worry about that stuff, debt, taxes, passing on deficit....only when democrats do it! :rolleyes:

It takes more than removable yellow ribbon stickers regards....
dave

road kill

12-03-2009, 07:40 AM

You're confusing me, Henry. In order for there to be hypocrisy wouldn't Cornyn, the GOP and the right wing media have to be calling for us to leave Afghanistan? Who are some of the hypocritical "they's" that you referred to above?

If you want examples of inconsistency or hypocrisy, look at the Dem politicians (and at least one person on this message board). Instead of having the balls to come out against the war in Afghanistan (how could they, when for years they pretended that was the "good" war being ignored by Bush?), they cravenly wring their hands about the economic costs of the war...while at the same time they clap their hands in glee at money being pissed down a tube with the Porkulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, Obama Care, and an unprecedented growth of the deficit.
He might be referring to me.
But I never supported nation building in Afgahnistan.
There is nothing of any value there.

Iraq was a target to stabilize the region.
(in theory)
Location and infrastructure were part of the puzzle.
Removing Hussein was also a need.

But in Afgahnistan the people could care less who runs the country.
Essentially there is no country to run.
It is arguably one of the 2 or 3 most desolate areas on earth.
I have heard and read it compared to central Africa.

How is Afgahnistan vital to US security?
Breeding ground for terrorists?
Then KILL the terrorists.

Again, do some reading on Afgahnistan.
There is nothing to be gained there.

We built the Taliban Army to bankrupt the Soviets.
We will be eaten by our own monster.

That and the politicizing of this war leads to failure.

Anyone here serve in SE Asia??
I have, not good!!

Add these and more up=FAILURE!!

GET OUT NOW!!

stan b

Gerry Clinchy

12-03-2009, 09:14 AM

NY times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03pstan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Yup, looks like O should have not been so definitive on the plan for ultimate withdrawal in A'stan. If he meant that the situation would be re-evaluated after 18 mos, then that is what he should have said not couple the 18 months with the word withdrawal.

Stan, I don't think it's so easy to just kill the terrorists. I think McC realizes that he needs the populace to help them do that since there are so many places for the bad guys to hide. Without the general citizenry helping to find them, it wouldn't be possible to do that.

I do think that O hated to do the troop increase ... as a pragmatic political thing. He and his advisors HAD to know that it was not going to be a popular decision with a large segment of his supporters. OTOH, since he did decide to increase troops, he would have been better off not mentioning a timetable for withdrawal ... since that was like speaking out of two sides of his mouth ... and according to the NY Times article, that has had a great impact on the trust level of US commitment to those in P'stan and A'stan who might help the effort be successful. In answer to the thread question "all in or all out?" ... he didn't clarify that sufficiently. The T and AQ can use that "hedging" to their own purposes.

road kill

12-03-2009, 09:33 AM

NY times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03pstan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Yup, looks like O should have not been so definitive on the plan for ultimate withdrawal in A'stan. If he meant that the situation would be re-evaluated after 18 mos, then that is what he should have said not couple the 18 months with the word withdrawal.

Stan, I don't think it's so easy to just kill the terrorists. I think McC realizes that he needs the populace to help them do that since there are so many places for the bad guys to hide. Without the general citizenry helping to find them, it wouldn't be possible to do that.

I do think that O hated to do the troop increase ... as a pragmatic political thing. He and his advisors HAD to know that it was not going to be a popular decision with a large segment of his supporters. OTOH, since he did decide to increase troops, he would have been better off not mentioning a timetable for withdrawal ... since that was like speaking out of two sides of his mouth ... and according to the NY Times article, that has had a great impact on the trust level of US commitment to those in P'stan and A'stan who might help the effort be successful. In answer to the thread question "all in or all out?" ... he didn't clarify that sufficiently. The T and AQ can use that "hedging" to their own purposes.
I know it's not simple.
If we were face to face I could explain better, I think you would understand my reasoning.

But there is no country to build.
Afgahnistan is a wasteland.

We built the Taliban, right or wrong.

We have the weakest leadership since Carter, we all know how that worked.
(I never saw anyone look more out of place and uncomfortable in my life than Obama did at West Point!!)

The troops are demoralized.

I have been in combat (shot at, I didn't shoot, I ran the boat), have you?
Would you rather follow me into a hostile situation or President Obama?
Or;
Nancy Pelosi (who got what she wanted in this monumental decision)
Barney Frank?
Kerry?? (wanna compare leadership fitness reports??)
Barbra "Call me Senator" Boxer?
How about Harry Reid??

OK, maybe Rahm or Ayers??

I got my guys out alive!!
This is not good for our guys!!

We don't even have a leader who has the testes to define the mission!
We didn't go there to save Afgahnistan, we went there to KILL bad guys who attacked us!!

Obama's message is convoluted to say the least.

GET OUT NOW!!
Our guys deserve better!!

stan b

ducknwork

12-03-2009, 10:16 AM

GET OUT NOW!!

I wish that was a possibility. Are you not concerned that if we left the country in the condition it is in now that terrorist organizations would have a great foundation to build themselves upon (unchecked) and be capable of becoming stronger and better than ever before? If it wasn't for that concern, I would totally agree with you. I feel that those organizations must be destroyed (as much as possible)and the Afghan forces strengthened enough to defend themselves and fight terrorism before we call it quits or else we will deal with this again, most likely sooner than later.

road kill

12-03-2009, 10:23 AM

I wish that was a possibility. Are you not concerned that if we left the country in the condition it is in now that terrorist organizations would have a great foundation to build themselves upon (unchecked) and be capable of becoming stronger and better than ever before? If it wasn't for that concern, I would totally agree with you. I feel that those organizations must be destroyed (as much as possible)and the Afghan forces strengthened enough to defend themselves and fight terrorism before we call it quits or else we will deal with this again, most likely sooner than later.

If someone could tell me that our mission was to kill the terrorists, I am all in.

The mission is no longer that.
It's a political nightmare.

The people running it are not concerned about anything but politics.

BTW---this is just my opinion,I know that, just tryin to splain my position and how I got here.
President Obama is in over his head on this.
Too many voices in his ear, not enough of the right stuff to lead.

Our guys deserve better!!!

Bob Gutermuth

12-03-2009, 10:33 AM

Osama was in over his head trying to decide what breed of dog to get for his kids.

Gerry Clinchy

12-03-2009, 11:27 AM

Stan, thank you for your service. No, I have not served.

I agree with you that the land of A'stan is a wasteland. I understand what you mean when you say there is no nation to build in one sense. But there are people who have lived there for centuries, so the people are the "nation".

Killing the bad guys is the goal ... gaining the trust of the civilians appears to be the only way to be able to do that. Simply a means to an end. We know we can't abandon the mission due to the strategic nature of P'stan and A'stan. Due to the topography, just blasting has not worked for anyone trying to win in A'stan. You might say that the approach of protecting the civilians is the only option that has not been attempted before to any singnificant degree.

I would agree that we created the T monster. Perhaps that also gives us an edge in knowing how they operate?

I agree that O is in over his head on leadership quality. The hope, in my mind, is that with this decision to follow his military leaders' advice, O will also let the capable leaders in the military (P and McC) do what they know how to do ... lead and implement what they believe is the best available strategy to accomplish their mission. I do believe that these two military leaders would see their mission as getting the bad guys. I have more overall faith in the US military than any of our politicians!

I also agree that there is no way to accomplish any military goal anywhere anymore without the fact of political pressures. In order to get civilian trust, the US also has the double task of getting the civilians to trust their own govt ... no small task.

Interesting thoughts. The term "nation building" has a different meaning, I think, than the way some use the term. In this article the term means building a stable government that the citizens can have some hope in; a govt that is not simply a vehicle for corruption; a govt that reflects the needs of the citizens. Not an easy task, for sure in a country that has not had such a model in its history.

Roger Perry

12-06-2009, 04:56 PM

Rk ---- maybe you can explain these quotes from Dumbya about Bin Laden

For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

road kill

12-06-2009, 04:59 PM

Rk ---- maybe you can explain these quotes from Dumbya about Bin Laden

For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Do you mean President Bush??

If you don't understand the quotes, maybe you could get a 5th grader to help you, I am busy!!:D

And, do you have a point?
Or did you just wake up from your nap and feel the urge to take a cheap shot at Bush??

Roger Perry

12-06-2009, 05:08 PM

Do you mean President Bush??

If you don't understand the quotes, maybe you could get a 5th grader to help you, I am busy!!:D

And, do you have a point?
Or did you just wake up from your nap and feel the urge to take a cheap shot at Bush??

No cheap shot at Bush. He just bit off more than he could chew. If you think Obama is in over head, Bush must have been buried 10 feet under. Bush had 8 years to win a war, twice as long as WWI and WWII combined and he didn't win either. Obama is just trying to wipe up Bush's mess.

K G

12-06-2009, 05:30 PM

You've posted these EXACT quotes before, Roger....

That is PATHETIC...shows me what sort of confidence you have in our current President, that you have to recycle your old posts about Bush 43 to divert attention from CURRENT events....:rolleyes:

kg

dnf777

12-06-2009, 06:50 PM

Are you not concerned that if we left the country in the condition it is in now that terrorist organizations would have a great foundation to build themselves upon (unchecked) and be capable of becoming stronger and better than ever before? If it wasn't for that concern, I would totally agree with you..

So when do we invade and occupy Pakistan, Turkmenistan, any of the former Soviet Republics, China, North Korea, Venezuela, the list goes on and on. Oh, and don't forget Germany, Spain, and Florida and Nevada. These are all places that the terrorist network has committed planning and organization from. Like I said before, Afghanistan is like your garage when you turn the lights on...and see roaches scurrying to get out of the light. You can spend all day running around stomping on them, but the real answer is to contain and eliminate their food supply. Us milking our resources dry running around Afghanistan attacking camps will not disrupt the global terror network. Working with our allies (and even some of our not-so-allied countries who share a common interest in reducing the terror threat) with financial disruption, communication disruption, and political pressure is the way to attack this issue. Sure, if we gain intel that a camp is operating with resourses that are amenable to a few smart bombs, by all means! But spending several billion per month occupying vast desert expanses is illogical and ineffective.

subroc

12-06-2009, 09:39 PM

No cheap shot at Bush. He just bit off more than he could chew. If you think Obama is in over head, Bush must have been buried 10 feet under. Bush had 8 years to win a war, twice as long as WWI and WWII combined and he didn't win either. Obama is just trying to wipe up Bush's mess.

WW2 is still going on. We still occupy both Japan and Germany...

In case you need help with the math, that is 64 years of occupation...not counting the war...

ducknwork

12-07-2009, 07:47 AM

So when do we invade and occupy Pakistan, Turkmenistan, any of the former Soviet Republics, China, North Korea, Venezuela, the list goes on and on. Oh, and don't forget Germany, Spain, and Florida and Nevada. These are all places that the terrorist network has committed planning and organization from. Like I said before, Afghanistan is like your garage when you turn the lights on...and see roaches scurrying to get out of the light. You can spend all day running around stomping on them, but the real answer is to contain and eliminate their food supply. Us milking our resources dry running around Afghanistan attacking camps will not disrupt the global terror network. Working with our allies (and even some of our not-so-allied countries who share a common interest in reducing the terror threat) with financial disruption, communication disruption, and political pressure is the way to attack this issue. Sure, if we gain intel that a camp is operating with resourses that are amenable to a few smart bombs, by all means! But spending several billion per month occupying vast desert expanses is illogical and ineffective.

I posted this in one of the other threads.

BTW, I thought it was called the Global War on Terror, wasn't it? Besides, I am sure that they are already in all of the places that you mentioned, and more. Not to exclude the USA...Find them where ever they are and do what is necessary to disrupt the terror networks. (It doesn't have to ALL be military action, you know...)

dnf777

12-07-2009, 01:04 PM

I posted this in one of the other threads.

Sorry, I missed that one. But if that's your position, how can we support a multi-billion/month occupation/war in the vast expanse of Afghanistan? What's the end-point? How does that "solution" address the "problem"?

I don't know where on the political spectrum this lands me, (frankly I don't care) but I say lets get the hell out! And dedicate those dollars and resources to an action plan that is more likely to WORK!

road kill

12-07-2009, 01:32 PM

No cheap shot at Bush. He just bit off more than he could chew. If you think Obama is in over head, Bush must have been buried 10 feet under. Bush had 8 years to win a war, twice as long as WWI and WWII combined and he didn't win either. Obama is just trying to wipe up Bush's mess.

Originally Posted by Roger Perry
"Rk ---- maybe you can explain these quotes from Dumbya about Bin Laden"

WOW!!
Looks pretty much like a cheap shot from this angle!!

stan b

ducknwork

12-07-2009, 01:49 PM

Sorry, I missed that one. But if that's your position, how can we support a multi-billion/month occupation/war in the vast expanse of Afghanistan? Remember how quickly the 'surge' seemed to work in Iraq? That shortened the war quite a bit. Do the same in Astan (I believe it has begun) and we can cut many, many months off of the occupation. Perhaps we should have had a 'surge' in Astan years ago. Hindsight, however, is always 20/20. What's the end-point? When the mission is accomplished. Whatever that is... How does that "solution" address the "problem"? What is the problem we are addressing?:confused:

I don't know where on the political spectrum this lands me, (frankly I don't care) but I say lets get the hell out! And dedicate those dollars and resources to an action plan that is more likely to WORK!

As I recall, we are not fighting a war 'in' Afghanistan. It is the Global War on Terror, right? If there are terrorists in Afghanistan and military action is the correct way to combat them, do it. If there are terrorists in England and the correct way to combat them is _____, then do it. If there are terrorists in Florida and the correct way to combat them is _____, do it. We can't just sit idly by and let them develop their organizations because the American public wants to get out.

K G

12-07-2009, 02:25 PM

Wanna end the Afghanistan thing right now?? Hmmm??

Bring back napalm....over....done....:cool:

Back home in 12 months regards, ;-)

kg

JDogger

12-07-2009, 02:46 PM

As I recall, we are not fighting a war 'in' Afghanistan. .

From a thread titled 'who will be watching' post # 26 by ducknwork...

"Of course, but we are at war IN Afghanistan, are we not? "

So...which is it? :p

JD

ducknwork

12-07-2009, 03:26 PM

From a thread titled 'who will be watching' post # 26 by ducknwork...

"Of course, but we are at war IN Afghanistan, are we not? "

So...which is it? :p

JD

Notice the quotes? I didn't really know how to explain what I meant and the quotes were my best attempt. Sorry it wasn't good enough for the resident nitpicker in chief...

Thank you once again, JDog, for your incredible contributions to this forum...;):D

dnf777

12-07-2009, 04:28 PM

Wanna end the Afghanistan thing right now?? Hmmm??

Bring back napalm....over....done....:cool:

Back home in 12 months regards, ;-)

kg

You've got to be joking, right?
Pictures of more children on fire....as far as I know, there's no such thing as "smart napalm" that only douses the bad guys....will do wonders to get us out of Afghanistan, but not in the way any rational American would want.

dnf777

12-07-2009, 04:35 PM

Remember how quickly the 'surge' seemed to work in Iraq? That shortened the war quite a bit. Do the same in Astan (I believe it has begun) and we can cut many, many months off of the occupation. Perhaps we should have had a 'surge' in Astan years ago. Hindsight, however, is always 20/20. What's the end-point? When the mission is accomplished. Whatever that is... How does that "solution" address the "problem"? What is the problem we are addressing?
As I recall, we are not fighting a war 'in' Afghanistan. It is the Global War on Terror, right? If there are terrorists in Afghanistan and military action is the correct way to combat them, do it. If there are terrorists in England and the correct way to combat them is _____, then do it. If there are terrorists in Florida and the correct way to combat them is _____, do it. We can't just sit idly by and let them develop their organizations because the American public wants to get out.

Good questions. The surge in Iraq was intended to supress the insurgents from disrupting a fledgling democracy. We were admitedly engaged in nation building. That is not the case in Afghanistan. We are there to disrupt terror networks.....which from what I hear, are NOT chiefly located in Afghanistan. Who knows? I'm not privvy to the CIA intel! ;-)

I don't disagree with you. But if we're going to spend (borrow) on our children's tab, I'd like to have a more clear, concise set of missions and goals laid out. Answers to your questions. What is the problem we're addressing? How is what we're doing going to address that? I feel like I've gotten more of the same from Obama, that we had from Bush...except on a more expensive trajectory. I hope I'm wrong. I hope this works and benefits us in the long run. I'll happily eat my hat if that's the case.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama says he'll know by the end of 2010 if his Afghan strategy is working, and pledges to change direction if the U.S. military is not on course "in terms of securing population centers" from Taliban militants.

As he was questioned about upping the ante in Afghanistan, Obama also took a swipe at the Bush administration for invading Iraq on the mistaken suspicion Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq mission vastly diminished U.S. resources available in Afghanistan.
</H2>

K G

12-14-2009, 03:11 PM

You've got to be joking, right?
Pictures of more children on fire....as far as I know, there's no such thing as "smart napalm" that only douses the bad guys....will do wonders to get us out of Afghanistan, but not in the way any rational American would want.

Reminds me of that line from "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid"...."Rules? In a knife fight?"

"Rational" warfare regards,

kg

Steve Amrein

12-14-2009, 03:35 PM

When the Jihadist are able to get a nuke and send It here or Isreal they are not going to worry about pictures of burning children. We Have to realize that this mess we are in is not a war its some sort of cross between a police action and a sick political manuver. Either fight like its a war unleashing all we have sans nukes or come home. A enomy combatant with a bloody lip is not war.

paul young

12-14-2009, 03:53 PM

KG,

if one of those kids was to run up to you with their skin falling off in handkerchief sized sheets,pleading for help, you MIGHT get it..... or not. i guarantee you would smell it, and probably puke!

are you REALLY serious? if you are, may God have pity on your soul.

Steve, are you really advocating we decend to their level of barbarism? i find it hard to believe some of the things written in this forum lately.

you guys talk about "drinking the kool-aid"....is it because you have been drunk on it for a year now?-Paul

dnf777

12-14-2009, 04:18 PM

KG,

if one of those kids was to run up to you with their skin falling off in handkerchief sized sheets,pleading for help, you MIGHT get it..... or not. i guarantee you would smell it, and probably puke!

are you REALLY serious? if you are, may God have pity on your soul.

Steve, are you really advocating we decend to their level of barbarism? i find it hard to believe some of the things written in this forum lately.

you guys talk about "drinking the kool-aid"....is it because you have been drunk on it for a year now?-Paul

There's no use, Paul.
They don't understand the reasons and history behind certain conventions.
They don't understand that if we abandon our moral leadership in the world, it will be OUR boys and girls being subjected to the same horrors. To them, war is John Wayne and Chuck Norris. When you learn about war from movies like Rambo, you still think it is somehow glamorous. They don't understand that that child was somone's little girl, and little boy, who likely have NO knowledge of the US, or why there are planes flying overhead. May God have pity on their souls, and may God grant our leaders the wisdom to wage war ONLY as a last resort, failing diplomacy.

"cheers" somehow doesn't seem appropriate here,
dave

Steve Amrein

12-14-2009, 05:23 PM

DNF & Paul I noticed that you have not commented on my point as to what will happen WHEN the Jihadist find away to set off a nuke.

I also see no plesure glamor or anything positive about war. The object of war is to break sh*@ and kill people and continue until the people are so far defeated as to not pose a threat or to surrender on the winners terms. The whatever you call we are in has no goal or means to a end that I see. I see no reason to subject our personel or money in this action in A-stan. IMHO the last war we were in was WWII. We have not been in a conventional war that or military was allowed to win since. I do understand that we lost a lot of lives in Korea, Vietnam and smaller versions since. We are now fighting a war and are trying not to kill or enemy. The vermin we are not fighting will not give up until they are dead. I would hope that or military will accumplish this.

K G

12-14-2009, 05:42 PM

I'm with Steve on this one, gentlemen. I only used napalm from an "absolute war ender" point of view. If the Western powers weren't afraid of political correctness (and have been since the 60's, which is one BIG reason this country is in the mess it's in), the circumstances would never have existed for these wars to start in the first place.

Paul, you've taken the "holier than thou" stance a lot more here lately. Not sure why...the level of naivete' that you and those that think like you live with leaves me baffled. While I appreciate your offering up God's pity on my soul, my soul's stance with the Lord Almighty is just fine, thank you....and both you and Dave will notice that our Nobel Peace Price winning President just committed another 30k troop deployment to Afghanistan. Do you want them to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban effectively, or do you want them to come home in pieces (along with thousands of NON COMBATANTS) as a result of more IEDs? Both of those organizations CHEER when both soldiers and innocents die...you'll excuse me if I don't weep when we take out a cell with a Hellfire missile...sorta seems appropriate to me.

As much as the left wants it both ways, it can't happen. It would thrill me to no end for this conflict to end peacefully, but it is readily apparent the neither of your fellows really understand the ZEAL with which the radical Muslims wish us to die and die PAINFULLY.

Get your heads out of the sand, guys.

kg

WaterDogRem

12-14-2009, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE]They don't understand that if we abandon our moral leadership in the world, it will be OUR boys and girls being subjected to the same horrors.
When have we cut the heads off our enemy? Or hung and dragged them in the streets?

They don't understand that that child was somone's little girl, and little boy, who likely have NO knowledge of the US, or why there are planes flying overhead.

Are you saying these kids' parents don't know why US forces are around? Lots of these people continue to put their kids in harms way by protecting these scumbag terrorist in their villages and mosques. So what should we do? Let them use kid shields and kill our brothers/sisters who can't shoot back?

May God have pity on their souls, and may God grant our leaders the wisdom to wage war ONLY as a last resort, failing diplomacy.

You also state the use of war only after failing diplomacy. How has the diplomacy gone with the terrorists so far?

paul young

12-14-2009, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=dnf777]

When have we cut the heads off our enemy? Or hung and dragged them in the streets?

we haven't and we shouldn't.

Are you saying these kids' parents don't know why US forces are around? Lots of these people continue to put their kids in harms way by protecting these scumbag terrorist in their villages and mosques. So what should we do? Let them use kid shields and kill our brothers/sisters who can't shoot back?

and some do it at the point of a gun held to their heads. or their kid's heads. you have some way of knowing which ones are which?

You also state the use of war only after failing diplomacy. How has the diplomacy gone with the terrorists so far?

i am not aware of any attempt by this administration to do this. when has our President or his representative sat across a table from a representative of Al-Quaida to negotiate anything?

sorry Dave, i couldn't help myself!

mud wrestling with hogs again regards!-Paul

road kill

12-14-2009, 06:27 PM

There's no use, Paul.
They don't understand the reasons and history behind certain conventions.
They don't understand that if we abandon our moral leadership in the world, it will be OUR boys and girls being subjected to the same horrors. To them, war is John Wayne and Chuck Norris. When you learn about war from movies like Rambo, you still think it is somehow glamorous. They don't understand that that child was somone's little girl, and little boy, who likely have NO knowledge of the US, or why there are planes flying overhead. May God have pity on their souls, and may God grant our leaders the wisdom to wage war ONLY as a last resort, failing diplomacy.

"cheers" somehow doesn't seem appropriate here,
dave

Hey....THANKS for setting me straight on what war is!!:rolleyes:

I had almost forgotten.

rk

K G

12-14-2009, 06:31 PM

To the left, war is what the liberal media tells them it is...:cool:

"Negotiate" with al Qaeda...now that was funny....;-)

mud wrestling with hogs again regards!-Paul

You jumped in of your own volition, Paul...you must like it...:cool:

kg

paul young

12-14-2009, 06:57 PM

apparently so, Keith.

just answer this question yes or no, please.

do you think we should use incendiary bombs to fight terrorists holed up in villages where there are many more civilians than there are terrorists?-Paul

paul young

12-14-2009, 07:31 PM

I'm with Steve on this one, gentlemen. I only used napalm from an "absolute war ender" point of view. If the Western powers weren't afraid of political correctness (and have been since the 60's, which is one BIG reason this country is in the mess it's in), the circumstances would never have existed for these wars to start in the first place.

Paul, you've taken the "holier than thou" stance a lot more here lately. Not sure why...the level of naivete' that you and those that think like you live with leaves me baffled. While I appreciate your offering up God's pity on my soul, my soul's stance with the Lord Almighty is just fine, thank you....and both you and Dave will notice that our Nobel Peace Price winning President just committed another 30k troop deployment to Afghanistan. Do you want them to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban effectively, or do you want them to come home in pieces (along with thousands of NON COMBATANTS) as a result of more IEDs? Both of those organizations CHEER when both soldiers and innocents die...you'll excuse me if I don't weep when we take out a cell with a Hellfire missile...sorta seems appropriate to me.

As much as the left wants it both ways, it can't happen. It would thrill me to no end for this conflict to end peacefully, but it is readily apparent the neither of your fellows really understand the ZEAL with which the radical Muslims wish us to die and die PAINFULLY.

Get your heads out of the sand, guys.

kg

my stance is that i would not have this country's military commit acts of barbarism because our foe does. rather, that our leaders and generals use the superior weapons and intelligence gathering equipment at their disposal and use them to our advantage to take the fight to them.

i don't think my head is in the sand. i work with our military every day. i know what our military is capable of doing without stooping to the enemy's level. ANY TIME WE CAN IDENTIFY WHERE A BUNCH OF THEM ARE THEY SHOULD BE ANNIHILATED! but we can't just write all collateral losses off with an "oh well" because if we do their surviving family members will become terrorists themselves. we can't be in the terrorist recruitment business and have any hope of achieving our goals.

i think McChrystal and President Obama have given the matter a lot of consideration and have a plan going forward, which is more than the last administration had. the media has made much of the 18 month time period before they transition into a draw down of the troop level, but BOTH the General and the President have reiterated time and again that this is not an absolute, that it is going to be based on the progress that has been made. i think they're being realistic and are trying to do the right thing for our country, our miitary and the people of Afghanistan.

my job for the past 3 decades has been building and designing weapons of mass destruction. it sure as hell hasn't made me holy. but it has made me think about war and death on a level you might have trouble comprehending.-Paul

road kill

12-14-2009, 07:56 PM

UHHHHH......where Colin Powell at??

Shouldn't he be cheering his guy on??

Decrying his brilliance at how he's handling this??

Oh Colin, where for art thou??

Hoax & Change regards!!

rk

K G

12-14-2009, 09:02 PM

apparently so, Keith.

just answer this question yes or no, please.

do you think we should use incendiary bombs to fight terrorists holed up in villages where there are many more civilians than there are terrorists?-Paul

I am NOT in favor of callous collateral damage. I know you understand what I'm saying so I won't repeat it. That said, I believe if we have that intel, we should also have the means to cut off their escape routes and engage them in an "efficient" manner if that makes sense. Weapons used should be determined by the commanders in the field, not politicians.

my stance is that i would not have this country's military commit acts of barbarism because our foe does. rather, that our leaders and generals use the superior weapons and intelligence gathering equipment at their disposal and use them to our advantage to take the fight to them.

I agree...but again, the choice of weapons should belong to the folks doing the fighting.

i don't think my head is in the sand. i work with our military every day. i know what our military is capable of doing without stooping to the enemy's level. ANY TIME WE CAN IDENTIFY WHERE A BUNCH OF THEM ARE THEY SHOULD BE ANNIHILATED! but we can't just write all collateral losses off with an "oh well" because if we do their surviving family members will become terrorists themselves. we can't be in the terrorist recruitment business and have any hope of achieving our goals.

The automatic assumption seems to be if there are "unconventional" means employed (white phosporus, etc.) that our first concern needs to be collateral damage. I think it needs to be a CONCERN...not necessarily the first one, but A concern. If I didn't think so, I'd be asking why we don't employ the neutron bomb.

i think McChrystal and President Obama have given the matter a lot of consideration and have a plan going forward, which is more than the last administration had. the media has made much of the 18 month time period before they transition into a draw down of the troop level, but BOTH the General and the President have reiterated time and again that this is not an absolute, that it is going to be based on the progress that has been made. i think they're being realistic and are trying to do the right thing for our country, our miitary and the people of Afghanistan.

Again, I agree, from what I have seen....and I can only hope, as you do, that they are both realistic and "right" (as in "correct").

my job for the past 3 decades has been building and designing weapons of mass destruction. it sure as hell hasn't made me holy. but it has made me think about war and death on a level you might have trouble comprehending.-Paul

Thanks for your efforts on our behalf...and while I'm sure the nature of your work does allow you to see the "fruits" of your efforts in a far more up close and personal manner than most could comprehend, I've seen enough on the 'net of the results of both "ordinary" combat AND incendiary devices to do me for all time.

These are your words...with your experience, I'm sure you are aware of some of the HORRIFIC injuries that were suffered by the survivors of the 9/11 attacks. The "lucky" ones were the ones who were IMMEDIATELY incinerated when the planes crashed.
if one of those kids was to run up to you with their skin falling off in handkerchief sized sheets,pleading for help, you MIGHT get it..... or not. i guarantee you would smell it, and probably puke! I'm sure I would, as soon as the adrenaline wore off...but at least I'd be in a position to EXPECT it, rather than to be going about my day, having not concern about the 19 terrorists who were about to change the WORLD forever.

are you REALLY serious? if you are, may God have pity on your soul.

I think I've made my point here....

you guys talk about "drinking the kool-aid"....is it because you have been drunk on it for a year now?-Paul

Don't know which "guys" you're talking about, nor do I know who (or what) you mean by "drunk on it for a year now"...

kg

dnf777

12-15-2009, 01:36 AM

RK, I'm not going to butt heads with you about what war is about. I know you know. We don't ever want to go there, if not absolutely necessary. Some others just watch Chuck Norris movies and think its fun. They should just play nintendo.

Gerry Clinchy

12-28-2009, 05:24 PM

Anybody else watch the 60 minutes piece Sunday night that featured the head of security in A'stan and a former CIA operative.

The CIA operative discussed how they had achieved success in confining Al Queda & Taliban in operations in A'stan in 2001-2.

I was impressed with a statement made by the Afghani fellow ... to the effect that he was not fighting for the US; he was fighting for his own country ... it just happened that both interests were served by working together.

Golddogs

12-28-2009, 07:25 PM

Since this is a retrieveing board a bit of information.

After a tour in Iraq, my friends son Ben took bomb detection classes and is now ( 2 months) in Afganistan with his dog Breeze. Since he has been in country, he and Breeze have found 6 IED's which would have killed or maimed not only troops, but locals as well. and almost a dozen along the roads set for truck traffic. The locals love them and he feels the only way any good will come out of this is if we continue to avaoid killing inocents. It is making their job more difficult, but it pays dividends in the short and long term. We are all very proud of this young man and I guess I will listen much more closely o words from him on conditions than a chat board of dog folks.

Now about the retrieveing info: I talked to Ben's dad today and he was able to call last week for 2 minutes. No information was allowed as to where exactly he is, but it is in country and rugged. Seems he and Breeze were heeding natures call and as dogs will do, Breeze strolled off for a minute to air in private. A few moments later he comes back to Ben with a duck in his mouth still kicking. Ben is excited to now have a Black Lab to hunt with since dad is a springer guy.

Semper Fi Ben and thanks for your dedication.

road kill

07-30-2010, 05:31 PM

Are we still there??
Why??
Pathetic..........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Very sad........:cry:

RK

gman0046

07-30-2010, 05:39 PM

Thank you Ben and Breeze. I hope you and your fellow soldiers haven't found out about the courts legal decision on Arizonas immigration bill as you guys over there believe your fighting for America.

dnf777

07-30-2010, 06:25 PM

Thank you Ben and Breeze. I hope you and your fellow soldiers haven't found out about the courts legal decision on Arizonas immigration bill as you guys over there believe your fighting for America.

If you really hope they haven't found out, you wouldn't have just told them about it! Could it be just another political statement, rather than true concern for troops?

But you raise an interesting question. What ARE we fighting for in A-stan? Is it for America--or America's interests? Is A-stan a true partner of the USA worth sending troops to die for? Is their gov't pro- or anti-American?

My understanding was that originally, Bush sent troops to Astan to hunt and kill binLaden and those responsible for 911. By his actions, that obviously was NOT the mission. Now, Obama has not only continued the war, but escalated it, indeed taking "ownership". As an independent who was willing to give him a fair chance (as I was with Bush) BOTH men have failed IMO, to adequately explain and justify our presence in A-stan.

road kill

07-30-2010, 06:28 PM

If you really hope they haven't found out, you wouldn't have just told them about it! Could it be just another political statement, rather than true concern for troops?

But you raise an interesting question. What ARE we fighting for in A-stan? Is it for America--or America's interests? Is A-stan a true partner of the USA worth sending troops to die for? Is their gov't pro- or anti-American?

My understanding was that originally, Bush sent troops to Astan to hunt and kill binLaden and those responsible for 911. By his actions, that obviously was NOT the mission. Now, Obama has not only continued the war, but escalated it, indeed taking "ownership". As an independent who was willing to give him a fair chance (as I was with Bush) BOTH men have failed IMO, to adequately explain and justify our presence in A-stan.

DNF, I think you know I have been consistant on this one.

I want us out of there, I want no soldier killed there.
There is no strategic value there.

PLEASE, let's not lose another serviceperson...ever..there.

RK

gman0046

07-30-2010, 06:35 PM

Unfortunately Onbongolo is going down a path that will only cost more American lives. The Afghanistan Government is corrupt and the Paki's are supporting the taliban despite the US giving them millions of dollars. It's a war we can't win. Too bad Obongolo can't figure it out.

dnf777

07-30-2010, 07:16 PM

Unfortunately Onbongolo is going down a path that will only cost more American lives. The Afghanistan Government is corrupt and the Paki's are supporting the taliban despite the US giving them millions of dollars. It's a war we can't win. Too bad Obongolo can't figure it out.

Hold on to your hat, but I agree.

There is enough pro-Democracy amongst the people, that I think the 3 cups of tea approach would do us much more good in keeping the taliban out. With reserving the right to carry out drone attacks on pinpoint targets as the need arises.

gman0046

07-30-2010, 07:22 PM

I wish you were right David but after 9 years this thing is no closer to the end. This month July 2010 is the worst month yet for U.S. casualties. Unfortunately I believe there's many more to come.

BonMallari

07-30-2010, 07:31 PM

when I posted on this thread back in Nov. I had my doubt as to what we should do.....Now I am in the camp of let's get out..NOW...I dont know if the American ego will allow us to, but we're spinning our wheels over there and lives are being lost over worthless acres of dirt...Does anybody even remember or know what our primary objective was in the first place

Franco

07-30-2010, 08:05 PM

I've never supported nation building and we were told that we were going in to take Bin Lauden out.

Obama was handed a bad situation because once we leave, the Taliban will kill thousands.

Plus, we'll have to take in a couple hundred-thousand Political Refugees. Same situation in Iraq.

Can someone explain to me how we are going to support 11 million illegals from Mexico and Central America and over a million new A'stan and Iraqi refugees?

YardleyLabs

07-30-2010, 08:11 PM

I've never supported nation building and we were told that we were going in to take Bin Lauden out.

Obama was handed a bad situation because once we leave, the Taliban will kill thousands.

Plus, we'll have to take in a couple hundred-thousand Political Refugees. Same situation in Iraq.

Can someone explain to me how we are going to support 11 million illegals from Mexico and Central America and over a million new A'stan and Iraqi refugees?
The Koreans and Vietnamese before them seem to have done very well at becoming major producers in our economy.

I am not at all happy with what is going on in Afghanistan. At the same time, I think Afghanistan will look like a playground if Pakistan falls completely under the control of the Taliban

Franco

07-30-2010, 08:55 PM

The Koreans and Vietnamese before them seem to have done very well at becoming major producers in our economy.

I am not at all happy with what is going on in Afghanistan. At the same time, I think Afghanistan will look like a playground if Pakistan falls completely under the control of the Taliban

First, the Asian mindset is polar opposite from the A'stans and Iraqis. It has to do with their cultural backgrounds. Islam is very dogmatic and Budhist very pragmatic. Asians have done a great job of assimilating. Muslims have not though many have been here for decades.

Second, we can't stop what will happen in A'stan or Pakistan. When it does fall it will be because that is the will of the majority.

Just as we can't make the Iraqis truely fight for their freedon, we also can not change the inherent nature of the A'stans.

We are better served in the mideast by supporting Israel and a close allience with Turkey. Then let what will be, be in Iraq and A'stan.

When Pakistan falls to the religious zealots, then we will have to take thier nuclear facilities out. Just like when Iraqi's nuclear facilities will be taken out by us sometime in the near future.

If we didn't owe China so much damn money, we could pressure the Chinesse to deal with the N Koreans. That is why I am all for rearming the Japanesse.

JDogger

07-30-2010, 09:51 PM

I want us out of there, I want no soldier killed there.
There is no strategic value there.

PLEASE, let's not lose another serviceperson...ever..there.
RK

Make a note. 07/30/2010. The secular progessive, AKA JDogger, agrees with RoadKill.
What's the temperature in Hell?
While we're at it, let's get out of Iraq too. Shoot..., bring 'em home from Gremany, Korea, Japan, Turkey, etc. etc. Every hellhole where we perceive our national interest to be a factor.
Shut down USAID, USIS, Peace Corps... Heck, close the State Dept. No more expensive foreign aid for Israel or anyone else.
Who needs 'em?
Let's close the border and withdraw from the rest of the world, They don't like us anyway.

Think of all the money we could save. With all those troops home we could keep the illegals out. Fight gangs and drugs too. Go to church on Sunday, then to the ice cream parlor, and finish up with a hayride.:rolleyes:

JD

BonMallari

07-30-2010, 10:11 PM

Make a note. 07/30/2010. The secular progessive, AKA JDogger, agrees with RoadKill.
What's the temperature in Hell?

JD

Don't leave me out since you are marking the date....and the temp in hell was 119.....not Las Vegas but next door in Death Valley or Furnace Creek...

JDogger

07-30-2010, 10:32 PM

Don't leave me out since you are marking the date....and the temp in hell was 119.....not Las Vegas but next door in Death Valley or Furnace Creek...

Do you know Sandy Valley? Where they shot Hombre w/ P. Newman.

My playground in HS. Valley of Fire too.

Western HS class of '66

JD

M&K's Retrievers

07-31-2010, 12:18 AM

Make a note. 07/30/2010. The secular progessive, AKA JDogger, agrees with RoadKill.
What's the temperature in Hell?
While we're at it, let's get out of Iraq too. Shoot..., bring 'em home from Gremany, Korea, Japan, Turkey, etc. etc. Every hellhole where we perceive our national interest to be a factor.
Shut down USAID, USIS, Peace Corps... Heck, close the State Dept. No more expensive foreign aid for Israel or anyone else.
Who needs 'em?
Let's close the border and withdraw from the rest of the world, They don't like us anyway.

Think of all the money we could save. With all those troops home we could keep the illegals out. Fight gangs and drugs too. Go to church on Sunday, then to the ice cream parlor, and finish up with a hayride.:rolleyes:

JD

That would make way too much sense. This country has all it needs to survive and grow. If we would quit trying to take care of everyone else in the world and just take care of our own, imagine where we could be. I'm not sure the "Great Wall of America" would be all that bad.

dnf777

07-31-2010, 07:34 AM

Another angle on this is does it really matter if we're there or not?
this is like the arcade game were the little heads keep popping up, and you wack them with a hammer...but they just keep popping up, and the longer you play, the faster they come....then two at at time! Astan is a large rugged area, now throw P-stan into the mix. And even if we send a million troops, they'll just move and pop up somewhere else.

So maybe financial, command and communication disruption is the more effective way to go, along with the 3 cups of tea at the same time to levy diplomatic pressure as well......all rather than having our boys and girls living in tents getting shot at.

YardleyLabs

07-31-2010, 07:50 AM

That would make way too much sense. This country has all it needs to survive and grow. If we would quit trying to take care of everyone else in the world and just take care of our own, imagine where we could be. I'm not sure the "Great Wall of America" would be all that bad.
Actually, a fully isolated US would be up a creek without a paddle. We are not self sufficient. We depend on the rest of the world as a market for our goods, as a source for the things we buy, as a source for the natural resources we consume every day, and as the creditor to pay our bills so we won't have to. Even the profits of our companies are increasingly dependent on other countries since we have largely starved the consumer classes in our own.

Once you start building lots of walls to keep the other guy out, you quickly find that they reciprocate. The world today is not the world of 20-30 years ago. Then, the world needed us more than we needed them. Now, I think we might find that we need them more than they need us. Europe, China, India, and even Russia are all poised to assume greater positions of leadership economically and politically in the world. In the meantime, we have grown addicted to living on the dole -- not welfare for welfare recipient in our own country, but as a country relying on others to finance our day to day existence.

road kill

07-31-2010, 08:47 AM

Make a note. 07/30/2010. The secular progessive, AKA JDogger, agrees with RoadKill.
What's the temperature in Hell?
While we're at it, let's get out of Iraq too. Shoot..., bring 'em home from Gremany, Korea, Japan, Turkey, etc. etc. Every hellhole where we perceive our national interest to be a factor.
Shut down USAID, USIS, Peace Corps... Heck, close the State Dept. No more expensive foreign aid for Israel or anyone else.
Who needs 'em?
Let's close the border and withdraw from the rest of the world, They don't like us anyway.

Think of all the money we could save. With all those troops home we could keep the illegals out. Fight gangs and drugs too. Go to church on Sunday, then to the ice cream parlor, and finish up with a hayride.:rolleyes:

JD
I guess we don't totally agree, I just want out of Afgahnistan....TODAY!!
Don't know about all that other stuff.

There is absolutely no reason to be there.

RK

dnf777

07-31-2010, 01:26 PM

I guess we don't totally agree, I just want out of Afgahnistan....TODAY!!
Don't know about all that other stuff.

There is absolutely no reason to be there.

RK

You know we agree on that, but put yourself in O's position. If he pulls out, and so much as a firecracker is lit on the streets of NYC or Kabul, every republican in the free world will point the finger and yell, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU!!"

That's one prime example of how our current "anti everything the other side does" mentality is counterproductive.

Roger Perry

07-31-2010, 02:21 PM

I guess we don't totally agree, I just want out of Afgahnistan....TODAY!!
Don't know about all that other stuff.

There is absolutely no reason to be there.

RK

Why didn't your guy get us out of there, after all, he had 8 years to do it in? The excuse was going after Bin Laden and high ranking al queda. When we did not get them why did we not get out?

gman0046

07-31-2010, 02:28 PM

Perry how did we know you were going to blame BUSH? You are a broken record. Give us all a break and get off the Bush thing its about 6 months too long. Can't you help yourself? You might want to consider therapy.

road kill

07-31-2010, 02:29 PM

Why didn't your guy get us out of there, after all, he had 8 years to do it in? The excuse was going after Bin Laden and high ranking al queda. When we did not get them why did we not get out?

Don't know, but YOUR guy seems to like it there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3qXrLpeuA&feature=fvsr

RK

Roger Perry

08-01-2010, 11:01 AM

Perry how did we know you were going to blame BUSH? You are a broken record. Give us all a break and get off the Bush thing its about 6 months too long. Can't you help yourself? You might want to consider therapy.

I did not place any blame on Dumbya. RK said he wanted us out of Afghanistan TODAY. A few years ago he was against the democrats calling for getting out calling it cut and run. Again the main purpose of invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden and high ranking al queda members, not the Taliban. We did not get Bin Laden and very few high ranking al queda members (if any) in the first 6 - 12 months. I was just asking why did we not get out of there then? Not putting the blame on anyone, just asking a fair question.

road kill

08-01-2010, 11:05 AM

I did not place any blame on Dumbya. RK said he wanted us out of Afghanistan TODAY. A few years ago he was against the democrats calling for getting out calling it cut and run. Again the main purpose of invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden and high ranking al queda members, not the Taliban. We did not get Bin Laden and very few high ranking al queda members (if any) in the first 6 - 12 months. I was just asking why did we not get out of there then? Not putting the blame on anyone, just asking a fair question.
No I was not, you are guessing.
I have never been about being in Afgahnistan...EVER!!
That is a LIE Roger.......your group wanted to cut and run in Iraq!!

Read the history books about foreign powers in Afgahnistan.
Ask the Russians.
Looks like we'll be getting out.....someday!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100801/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan

BTW--Classey name calling......:D

RK

Roger Perry

08-01-2010, 11:18 AM

No I was not, you are guessing.
I have never been about being in Afgahnistan...EVER!!
That is a LIE Roger.......your group wanted to cut and run in Iraq!!

Read the history books about foreign powers in Afgahnistan.
Ask the Russians.
Looks like we'll be getting out.....someday!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100801/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan

BTW--Classey name calling......:D

RK

My group is Independents and I doubt they wanted to cut and run. ;)

dnf777

08-01-2010, 11:25 AM

A few years ago he was against the democrats calling for getting out calling it cut and run.

While many republicans will criticize Obama no matter what the stance, even if it's one that they themselves espouse, RK has never supported Afghanistan. I know that from long PMs we've shared, and will remain private.

I would be curious to see a "kill tally" between Obama and Bush on taliban and al qadea leaders. At least in Astan, I bet Obama's watch has resulted in more terrorists sleeping on the right side of the sod (under it) than Bush.

I've questioned our occupation and operations is Astan for some time, and have been disappointed in our continuation. I'm not sure exactly what we accomplished in Iraq, for that matter? Condy Rice sat down with Quadaffi. Was Hussein any worse than Quadaffi? We paid a HUGE price in blood and dollars, and I'm not sure what we have to show for it.